1951-11-19

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minisier of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Knowles be substituted for that of Mr. Knight on the special committee on radio broadcasting.
That the name of Mr. Wylie be substituted for that of Mr. Low on the special committee on railway legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What is the approximate total value of the prime contracts dealt with by the small industries division of the production branch of the Department of Defence Production from April 1, 1951 to date, concerning which this division has distributed information to enable subcontractors to approach prime contracting firms for possible subcontracts?
2.	What effect has the activities of this division had to date on the distribution of subcontracts?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	The small industries division of the Department of Defence Production is a service division and it is, therefore, impossible to measure in quantitative terms the exact effect of its activities on the distribution of subcontracts throughout Canada. One method whereby subcontractors are kept advised of all prime contracts placed by the department is through the distribution twice a month of a list of all unclassified contracts over $10,000. The division has interviewed officials of some twelve hundred firms and there is no doubt that the work which the division is doing is helping to effect a wider distribution of subcontracts.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



RUSTICO HARBOUR, P.E.I.-USE OF DRAGGER BOATS

Mr. McLure:: Will provision be made for the Rustico harbour fishermen in order that they may be able to use the new type dragger boats?


Alphonse Fournier: The matter of deepening the entrance channel to Rustico harbour
is under consideration. However, as this would be a large expenditure, it is being given further study.



PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE-EAST BLOCK- ALTERATIONS

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	With reference to the contract let to A. I. Garvock for structural alterations to the official residence at 24 Sussex street, what was (a) the percentage or rate of fixed fee; (b) the amount paid the contractor under this heading?
2.	With reference to the contract for work to the east block awarded to Doran Construction Company, what was (a) the percentage or rate of fixed fee; (b) the amount paid or to be paid to the contractor under this heading?
3.	Are these amounts included in or additional to the amounts of $284,220.56 and $912,849.51 respectively, previously indicated as the cost of these respective operations?


Alphonse Fournier: 24 Sussex street:
1.	(a) Fixed fee of $10,000 on expenditure up to $168,000, plus 5 per cent on additional expenditure, such latter fee not to exceed $4,475; (b) $13,948.75.
East block:
2.	(a) Fixed fee amounting to $11,300 on $161,300 plus 6 per cent on additional expenditure up to $625,000 plus 5 per cent on expenditure over $625,000; (b) $49,613.40 (paid).
3.	Included.



VETERANS


Mr. McLure:: 1.	Were any claims made by the Department of Veterans Affairs against dentists for alleged overpayment for dental services to veterans during the years 1945 to 1951? If so, how many?
2.	What number from each of the ten provinces?
3.	What number of such claims, if any, are still before the courts?
4.	How many cases were paid under protest?


Mr. Mulch:: Mr. Speaker, here again I have spoken to the hon. gentleman who asked the question. I am informed that to answer the question in its present form it would require the examination of some 700,000 files. I have agreed to bring the information that I have to the attention of the hon. gentleman with the view to seeing whether I can satisfy him; otherwise he may rephrase the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.

Questions



ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIES IN CANADA BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What is the number of industries established by foreign countries, other than the United States, in Canada, since January 1, 1946, to the present time?
2.	How many in each of the provinces, respectively?
3.	In each case, what is (a) the country of origin: (b) the amount of capital invested; (c) the product being manufactured?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	136 plants were established during that period.
2.	Ontario, 61; Quebec, 59; Newfoundland, 5; Nova Scotia, 5; Alberta, 3; British Columbia, 2; New Brunswick, 1.
3.	(a) Ontario-United Kingdom, 52; Sweden, 3; Germany, 2; Australia, 1; Czechoslovakia, 1; France, 1; Holland, 1.
Quebec-United Kingdom, 31; France, 11; Czechoslovakia, 4; Germany, 3; Switzerland, 3; Belgium, 1; Columbia, 1; Greece, 1; Holland, 1; Hungary, 1; Italy, 1; Roumania, 1.
Newfoundland-Germany, 5.
Nova Scotia-United Kingdom, 3; Czechoslovakia, 1; Germany, 1.
Alberta-United Kingdom, 2; Sweden, 1.
British Columbia-United Kingdom, 1; France, 1.
New Brunswick-United Kingdom, 1.
3.	(b) Non-resident (excluding United States) direct investments in manufacturing enterprises that have established or are in the course of establishing in Canada during the period January 1, 1946, to November 15, 1951, by provinces:
Ontario, $36,000,000; Quebec, $16,000,000; Newfoundland, not available; Nova Scotia, $1,700,000; Alberta, $560,000; British Columbia, $800,000 (estimated); New Brunswick, $500,000 (estimated).
3.	(c) Ontario-Food and beverages, 6; Textiles (ex clothing), 4; Clothing (textiles and fur), 3; Wood products, 3; Paper products, 1; Printing and publishing, 1; Iron and steel products, 19; Electrical apparatus and supplies, 6; Non-metallic mineral products, 1; Chemical products, 9; Transportation equipment, 6; Miscellaneous products, 2.
Quebec-Food and beverages, 1; Health products, 2; Textiles (ex clothing), 14; Clothing (textiles and fur), 5; Wood products, 2; Iron and steel products, 10; Non-ferrous metals products, 3; Electrical apparatus and supplies, 2; Non-metallic mineral products, 3; Chemical products, 5; Transportation equipment, 4; Miscellaneous products, 8.

Newfoundland-Leather products, 2; Textiles (ex clothing), 1; Clothing (textiles and fur), 1; Iron and steel products, 1.
Nova Scotia-Food and beverages, 1; Clothing (textiles and fur), 1; Non-ferrous metal products, 1; Electrical apparatus and supplies, 1; Transportation equipment, 1.
Alberta-Wood products, 1; Iron and steel products, 1; Chemical products, 1.
British Columbia-Wood products, 1; Iron and steel products, 1.
New Brunswick-Printing and publishing, 1.



SALES DURING CROP YEAR 1950-51

Mr. Fair:: 1.	What quantity of wheat was sold under the international wheat agreement, during the crop year 1950-51?
2.	What average price per bushel was obtained?
3.	During the same period what quantity of class II wheat was sold?
4.	What was the average price per bushel
obtained?
5.	For the same period, what quantity was sold to Canadian millers for Canadian consumption as flour?
6.	At what price per bushel was this wheat sold?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Answer to this question will be contained in the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1950-51, the compilation of which is now in process.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. See answer to No. 1.



THE ROYAL TOUR


Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 1.	What plan was followed by the Canadian National Railways in selecting train crews in the Atlantic region in connection with the royal visit?
2.	Were the following factors considered (a) security; (b) good record; (c) experience?
3.	Who recommended the selections?
4.	Were they approved by the general manager of the Atlantic region?
5.	What are the names, with length of service in
each case of (a) conductors; (b) trainmen; (c) locomotive engineers; (d) firemen; (e) electricians?


Mr. Chevrier:: Questions



VETERANS RECEIVING MEDICAL TREATMENT- UNEMPLOYMENT SUPPLEMENT

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many veterans are now receiving medical treatment in sanatoria and tuberculosis hospitals in Canada?
2.	Are disabled veterans, receiving medical treatment in hospital, entitled) to payment of the unemployment supplement?
3.	Has consideration been given to providing for payment of the unemployment supplement to such veterans?
4.	If not so entitled, upon what basis is payment denied?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. gentleman in whose name this question stands. It is impossible to answer it in its present form. He has agreed to drop it and reword it in such fashion that I can supply the information.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



INCOME TAX DIVISION, LONDON, ONT.   EMPLOYEES  DISMISSALS, RESIGNATIONS, ETC.

Mr. While (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many persons were employed temporarily and permanently in the Department of National Revenue, income tax division, London, Ontario, at the end of each calendar month from January, 1950, to October 31, 1951, inclusive?
2.	How many persons were discharged or otherwise let out from the above division in each of the calendar months from January, 1950, to October 31, 1951, inclusive?
3.	How many persons were taken on staff permanently and temporarily in the above division in each of the calendar months from January, 1950, to October 31, 1951, inclusive?
4.	How many persons resigned from the above division in each of the calendar months from January, 1950, to October, 1951, inclusive?


Mr. McCann:: 1. The following is a list, by months, of the number of persons employed permanently and temporarily in the taxation division, London district office, from January, 1950, to October 31, 1951, inclusive:
Permanent Temporary Total
January 	... 268	243	511February ....	... 266	242	508March 	... 265	240	505April 	... 264	239	503May	... 263	235	498June 	... 263	229	492July	... 262	222	484August 	... 259	208	467September ...	. . . 256	193	449October 	... 251	164	415November ...	... 246	119	365December ....	... 246	114	360January 	... 241	110	351February ....	.. . 237	109	346March	... 237	108	345April 	... 236	110	346May	... 236	108	344June 	... 234	109	343July 	... 229	108	337August 	... 224	103	327September ...	... 224	100	324October	.. . 218	91	309
2. The following is a list, by months, of the number of employees of the taxation division, London district office, who were discharged, or otherwise let out, for the period January, 1950, to October 31, 1951, inclusive:
January	 Nil
February	 Nil
March	 Nil
April	 Nil
May	 Nil
June	 Nil
July	 Nil
August	 Nil
September	 Nil
October	 13
November	 34
December	 2
January	 Nil
February	 Nil
March	 Nil
April	 Nil
May	 Nil
June	 Nil
July	 Nil
August	 1
September	 2
October	 6
Total	 58
3. The following is a list, by months, of the number of permanent and temporary appointments to the taxation division, London district office, from January, 1950, to October 31, 1951, inclusive:
1950	Permanent	TemporaryJanuary ..	
Nil	3February .	
Nil	2March	
Nil	NilApril	
Nil	1May 	
Nil	1June	.... Nil	1July	
Nil	NilAugust ...	.... Nil	NilSeptember	
Nil	NilOctober ...	
Nil	NilNovember	.... Nil	NilDecember	
Nil	Nil1951	Permanent	TemporaryJanuary ...	... Nil	NilFebruary ..	... Nil	NilMarch	... Nil	NilApril 	... Nil	4May	... Nil	1June	... Nil	5July	... Nil	1August ....	... Nil	NilSeptember .	... Nil	1October ....	.. . Nil	NilTotal 	... Nil	204.	The following is a list, by months, of the number of persons from the taxation division, London district office, who resigned during the period January, 1950, to October, 1951, inclusive:January	
6February	
4March	
2April	
2May	
9June	
7July	
15August	
16September	
27October	
21November	
14December	
3January	
7February	
2March	
1April	
3May	
6June	
5July	
3August	
6September	
2October	
5Total	
166



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY  EFFECT ON WATER LEVELS OF LAKE ST. PETER

Mr. Boisvert:: What effect will the seaway project have on the water levels of lake St. Peter?


Lionel Chevrier: The water levels of lake
St. Peter will not be affected.



PENTICTON, B.C., POST OFFICE

Mr. Jones:: 1.	Were tenders called in connection with the addition to the post office at Penticton, British Columbia?
2.	If so, what are the names of those who submitted tenders, and the amount of each tender?
Questions
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and at what figure?
4.	Were terms of this tender altered after the award, or other arrangements made?
5.	If so, what changes were made?
6.	Was there an increase in the original tender price? If so, in what amount?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	C. J. Oliver Limited, Vancouver, $136,863; Kenyon and Company Limited, Penticton, $159,777.89; Dominion Construction Company Limited, Vancouver, $166,800;
3.	(a) C. J. Oliver Limited, Vancouver; (b) $136,863.
4.	5 and 6. Under P.C. 4919 dated September 18, 1951, an extra expenditure of $5,202 was authorized to cover the cost of the revisions to the foundations including underpinning.



RUSTICO HARBOUR-CAVENDISH NATIONAL PARK ROAD

Mr. McLure:: 1.	Will the hard surfacing of the national park road from Rustico harbour to Cavendish be completed in 1951?
2.	If not, will this project be completed in 1952?
3.	What is the estimated cost for the hard surfacing?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No. During 1951 the stabilized gravel base course was laid, but weather conditions did not permit the treating of this base course with asphalt.
2.	No decision has been made regarding the availability of funds in the fiscal year 1952-53.
3.	Cost of base course, $34,587.19; estimated cost to complete to specifications, $15,000.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For the complete file of correspondence respecting each and every person who, to the knowledge of any department of the government, has travelled to (a)	U.S.S.R.;	(b) Poland; (c) Hungary; (d)
Czechoslovakia, since the first day of January, 1950, together with a copy of all correspondence which passed between each of the said persons and the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, prior to the issue of passport to each of said persons.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who is absent today, asked me to ask the hon. gentlemen moving these motions whether they would let them stand until tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.

Wheat



USE OF WORD &quot;DOMINION&quot; FOR COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

Mr. Fullon:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between or on behalf of the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom or the government of any other commonwealth country during the last five years concerning the use of the word "dominion" as applied to commonwealth countries, and particularly with reference to any suggested change or alteration in the description or style of title of commonwealth countries.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also stands?


Alphonse Fournier: Until tomorrow.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
'On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balilefords: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the anxiety of the western grain producers, is the minister in a position to make a statement in regard to wheat payments?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house of the details of the final payment on wheat delivered to the Canadian wheat board during the crop year ended July 31, 1951.
Members will recall that the 1950 wheat crop in the prairie provinces was very late in maturing and suffered severe frost damage. In addition, unfavourable harvesting weather resulted in the delivery of substantial quantities of out of condition grain, with the result that a large scale drying program had to be carried out. Owing in part to the late harvest, transportation was a continuing problem throughout the crop year. These problems, inherent in the 1950 wheat crop, were tackled vigorously by the Canadian wheat board, the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, and other agencies. I think that the operating results which I shall describe will meet with the approval of producers and that the distribution now of the substantial surplus in 195051 wheat board operations will be of great assistance to producers who are affected by the delayed and uncompleted harvest this fall.
During 1950-51 producers delivered a total of 366-2 million bushels of wheat to the board. Of these deliveries approximately 150 million bushels graded No. 5, No. 6 and feed. Some No. 5 wheat was sold for milling purposes but the great part of the lower grades delivered to the board in 1950-51 had to be marketed as feed grain.
The 1950-51 pool account was closed out on October 20, and final accounting has now

been completed. In closing out the pool, a total of 95-3 million bushels of wheat was transferred to the 1951-52 pool under the provisions of section 24(a) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Of the amount of wheat so transferred, about 25-0 million bushels consisted of milling grades of wheat which were covered by open sales contracts for future delivery. These stocks of milling grades were transferred at prices in line with sales contracts after an allowance had been made for carrying charges. The larger part of the transfer-about 70 million bushels- consisted of lower grades of wheat which were partially covered by open sales contracts for future delivery. Having in mind these contracts and sales prospects, stocks of low grade wheat were transferred to the new pool on the basis of the board's asking prices on October 20, less an allowance for continuing charges and market risks.
The net surplus in the 1950-51 wheat pool is $104,933,267.56. This means an average final payment of 28-65 cents per bushel on 366 [DOT] 2 million bushels of wheat delivered to the board in 1950-51. The final payments, and total returns to producers basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver for each of the principal grades are as follows:
			Final	Total return
			payment	to producers
			cents per	per
			bushel	bushel
No.	i	northern 	
25-498	*$1-85498No.	2	northern 	
25-809	1-82809No.	3	northern 	
29-343	1-79343No.	4	northern 	
32 076	1-74076No.	5	wheat 	
32-030	1-64030No.	6	wheat 	
24-511	1-50511Feed	wheat 	
24-562	1-44562
Basis Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
I would like to draw particular attention to the results achieved in the merchandising of lower grades of wheat. During the sales period of the 1950-51 pool, the board sold about two-thirds of the 150 million bushels of low grade wheat received from producers. Notwithstanding these large sales, the board was able to realize prices which now permit a substantial final payment on grades of wheat which, in the main, are marketable only as feed grain. I am sure that wheat producers in the prairie provinces who experienced the devastating results of the frosts of August, 1950, will be glad to know that these final payments are now coming to them, and that the final result is so much better than many people had anticipated.
The distribution of final payment cheques to producers will commence within a few days, and the final wheat payment will be completed prior to Christmas. The final payments on the 1950-51 oats and barley pools are just being completed.

Wheat
Wheat Crop
Hon. members will recall that I had estimated that total payments to be made this fall would be over $100 million. Now that we have the results of the wheat operation I am glad to say that the total will be approximately $130 million.
During this statement I have given the final payments for each of the principal grades of wheat. With the permission of the house, I should like to put on Hansard a table giving final payments for all the grades of wheat- some 339 in number-for each of which a separate pool was maintained by the Canadian wheat board.
It is as follows:
Schedule of Payments to be Made Persons Named in Producers' Certificates Relating to the 1950 Wheat Crop
Cents per
Grade	Bushel
No. 1 Manitoba	hard	
25-498No. 1 Manitoba	northern	
25-498No. 2 Manitoba	northern	
25-609No. 3 Manitoba	northern	
29-343No. 4 Manitoba	northern	
32-076No. 5 wheat	
32-030No. 6 wheat	
24-511Feed wheat	
24-562No. 4 special	
29-076No. 5 special	
29-030No. 6 special	
20-511No. 1 Canada western soft white spring..	35-498No. 2 Canada western soft white spring..	35-442No. 3 Canada western soft white spring 35-905 No. 4 Canada western soft white spring..	33-671No. 1 Canada western garnet	
30-720No. 2 Canada western garnet	
32-380No. 3 Canada western garnet	
33-506No. 1 Alberta red winter	
30-498No. 2 Alberta winter	
30-142No. 3 Alberta winter	
31-376No. 4 Alberta winter	
31-306No. 1 Canada western amber durum ...	25-498No. 2 Canada western amber durum ...	26-380No. 3 Canada western amber durum ... 32-133 No. 4 Canada western amber durum ...	29-219No. 5 Canada western amber durum ...	26-900No. 6 Canada western amber durum ...	26-839No. 1 Canada western mixed grain	
29-562No. 1 Canada western mixed wheat	26-592No. 2 Canada western mixed wheat	27-244No. 3 Canada western mixed wheat	26-587No. 4 Canada western mixed wheat	26-554No. 5 Canada western mixed wheat	26-716No. 6 Canada western mixed wheat	27-032Tough No. 1 Manitoba	northern	
25-498Tough No. 2 Manitoba	northern	
25-809Tough No. 3 Manitoba	northern	
29-343Tough No. 4 Manitoba	northern	
32-076Tough No. 5 wheat	
33-030Tough No. 6 wheat	
25-511Tough feed wheat	
25-502Tough No. 4 special	
29-076Tough No. 5 special	
30-030Tough No. 6 special	
21-511
Tough No. 1 Canada western soft white
spring	 35-498
Tough No. 2 Canada western soft white
spring	 35 - 442
Tough No. 3 Canada western soft white
spring	 35-905
Tough No. 4 Canada western soft white
spring	 33-671
Tough No. 2 Canada western garnet ... 32-380 Tough No. 3 Canada western garnet ... 33-506 Tough No. 2 Alberta winter	 30-142
Cents per
Grade	Bushel
Tough No.	3 Alberta	winter	
31-376Tough No.	4 Alberta	winter	
31-306Tough	No.	2	Canada	western	amberdurum	
26 - 380Tough	No.	3	Canada	western	amberdurum	
32 -133Tough	No.	4	Canada	western	amberdurum	
29-219Tough	No.	5	Canada	western	amberdurum	
27-900Tough	No.	6	Canada	western	amberdurum	
27 [DOT] 837Tough	No.	1	Canada	western	mixedgrain	
30 [DOT] 562Tough	No.	1	Canada	western	mixedwheat	
27 [DOT] 502Tough	No.	2	Canada	western	mixedwheat	
28 - 244Tough	No.	4	Canada	western	mixedwheat	
27-544Tough	No.	5	Canada	western	mixedwheat	
27-716Tough	No.	6	Canada	western	mixedwheat	
28 [DOT] 032
Tough and heating No. 3 Manitoba
northern	 35-343
Tough and heating No. 6 wheat	 30-511
Tough and heating feed wheat	 30-562
Tough	No.	4	Canada	western	amber
durum heating	 32-219
Tough rejected	No. 2 northern	
28-809Tough rejected	No. 3 northern	
32-343Tough rejected	No. 4 northern	
32-076Tough rejected	No. 5 wheat	
32-030Tough rejected	No. 6 wheat	
26-511Tough rejected feed wheat	
26-562
Tough rejected No. 3 Canada western
amber durum	 30-133
Tough rejected No. 4 Canada western
amber durum	 29-219
Tough rejected No. 5 Canada western
amber durum	 26-900
Tough rejected No. 6 Canada western
amber durum	 28-837
Tough rejected No. 5 mixed wheat ________ 28-716
Tough rejected No. 3 Canada western
amber durum mixed ergot	 29-133
Tough rejected No. 4 northern mildew 33-076 Tough rejected No. 6 wheat mildew .. 27-511
Tough rejected feed wheat mildew	 27-562
Tough rejected No. 2 northern mixed
fireburnt	 27 - 809
Tough rejected No. 2 northern mixed
heated	 27-809
Tough rejected No. 3 northern mixed
heated	 31-343
Tough rejected No. 4 northern mixed
heated	 31-076
Tough	rejected	No.	5	wheat	mixed
heated	 31-030
Tough	rejected	No.	6	wheat	mixed
heated	 25-511
Tough rejected feed wheat mixed
heated	 24-562
Tough rejected No. 2 Canada western
amber durum	mixed	heated	 28-380
Tough rejected No. 3 Canada western
amber durum	mixed	heated	 29-133
Tough rejected No. 4 Canada western
amber durum	mixed	heated	 28-219
Tough rejected No. 5 Canada western
amber durum	mixed	heated	 25-900
Tough rejected No. 6 Canada western
amber durum	mixed	heated	 27-837
Tough rejected No. 3 northern mixed
heated and heating	 32-343

Wheat
Cents per
Grade	Bushel
Tough rejected No. 5 wheat mixed
heated and heating	 32-030
Tough rejected No. 4 Canada western amber durum mixed heated and
heating	 29-219
Tough rejected No. 3 northern mixed
rotten kernels	 31-343
Tough rejected No. 6 wheat mixed
rotten kernels	 25-511
Tough rejected feed wheat mixed rotten
kernels	 25-562
Tough rejected No. 3 northern a/c
tartarian buckwheat	 31-343
Tough rejected No. 4 northern a/c
tartarian buckwheat	 31-076
Tough rejected No. 3 northern sprouted 31-343 Tough rejected No. 4 northern sprouted 31-076 Tough rejected No. 6 wheat sprouted ..	25-511
Tough rejected feed wheat sprouted .. 25-562
Tough smutty No. 2 northern	 30-809
Tough smutty No. 3 northern	 34-343
Tough smutty No. 4 northern	 34-076
Tough smutty No. 5 wheat	 32-030
Tough smutty No. 6 wheat	 26-511
Tough smutty feed wheat	 26-562
Tough smutty No. 2 Alberta winter________ 35-142
Tough smutty No. 2 Canada western
amber durum	 31-360
Tough smutty No. 3 Canada western
amber durum	 32-133
Tough smutty No. 4 Canada western
amber durum	 31-219
Tough smutty rejected No. 3 northern ..	30-343
Tough smutty rejected No. 4 northern ..	30-076
Tough smutty rejected No. 5 wheat .. 29-030 Tough smutty rejected No. 6 wheat .. 25-511
Tough smutty rejected feed wheat _________ 25-562
Tough smutty rejected No. 3 Canada
western amber durum	 28-133
Tough smutty rejected No. 3 northern
mixed heated	 30-343
Tough smutty rejected No. 4 northern
mixed heated	 30-076
Tough smutty rejected No. 5 wheat
mixed heated	 29-030
Tough smutty rejected No. 6 wheat
mixed heated	 25-511
Tough smutty rejected feed wheat
mixed heated	 25-562
Rejected No. 1 northern	 28-490
Rejected No. 2 northern	 28-809
Rejected No. 3 northern	 32-343
Rejected No. 4 northern	 32-076
Rejected No. 5 wheat	 31-030
Rejected No. 6 wheat	 25-511
Rejected feed wheat	 25-562
Rejected No. 2 soft white spring	 38-442
Rejected No. 3 soft white spring	 38-905
Rejected No. 2 Canada western garnet.. 35-380 Rejected No. 3 Canada western garnet.. 33-506
Rejected No. 1 Alberta red winter ______ 33-498
Rejected No. 2 Alberta winter	 33-142
Rejected No. 3 Alberta winter	 34-376
Rejected No. 2 Canada western amber
durum	  29-380
Rejected No. 3 Canada western amber
durum	 30-133
Rejected No. 4 Canada western amber
durum	 29-219
Rejected No. 5 Canada western amber
durum	 25-900
Rejected No. 6 Canada western amber
durum	 27-837
Rejected No. 1 mixed grain	 30-562
Rejected No. 1 mixed wheat	 27-592
Rejected No. 1 mixed grain a/c ergot ..	30-562
Rejected No. 4 northern mildew	 34-076
Rejected No. 5 wheat mildew	 33-030
Rejected No. 6 wheat mildew	 27-511

Cents per
Grade	Bushel
Rejected feed wheat mildew	 27-562
Rejected No. 1 mixed grain mildew
and field dirt	 29-562
Rejected feed wheat rotten kernels
mildew	 26-562
Rejected No. 3 northern a/c rye	 32-343
Rejected No. 3 northern a/c weedstain 32-343 Rejected No. 3 northern mixed earth .. 32-343 Rejected No. 4 northern mixed earth .. 32-076
Rejected feed wheat mixed earth	 25-562
Rejected feed wheat mixed fireburnt ..	25-562
Rejected No. 3 northern mixed gravel ..	32-343
Rejected No. 4 northern mixed gravel ..	32-076
Rejected No. 1 northern mixed heated .. 28-498 Rejected No. 2 northern mixed heated .. 28-809 Rejected No. 3 northern mixed heated ..	32-343
Rejected No. 4 northern mixed heated ..	32-076
Rejected No. 5 wheat mixed heated_______	31-030
Rejected No. 6 wheat mixed heated_______	25-511
Rejected feed wheat mixed heated ....	25-562
Rejected No. 3 Canada western garnet
mixed heated	 33-506
Rejected No. 1 Alberta red winter mixed
heated	 33-498
Rejected No. 2 Canada western amber
durum mixed heated	 29-380
Rejected No. 3 Canada western amber
durum mixed heated	 30-133
Rejected No. 4 Canada western amber
durum mixed heated	 29-219
Rejected No. 5 Canada western amber
durum mixed heated	 25-900
Rejected	No.	1 mixed	grain mixed
heated	 30-562
Rejected No. 2 northern mixed rotten
kernels	 28-809
Rejected No. 3 northern mixed rotten
kernels	 32-343
Rejected No. 4 northern mixed rotten
kernels	 32-076
Rejected	No.	5	wheat	mixed rotten
kernels	 31-030
Rejected	No.	6	wheat	mixed rotten
kernels	 25-511
Rejected	feed	wheat	mixed rotten
kernels	 25-562
Rejected No. 5 Canada western amber
durum mixed rotten kernels	 25-900
Rejected No. 2 northern sprouted	 28-609
Rejected No. 3 northern sprouted	 32-343
Rejected No. 4 northern sprouted	 32-076
Rejected No. 5 wheat sprouted	 31-030
Rejected No. 1 northern a/c tartarian
buckwheat	 28-498
Rejected No. 2 northern a/c tartarian
buckwheat	 28-809
Rejected No. 3 northern a/c tartarian
buckwheat	 32-343
Rejected No. 4 northern a/c tartarian
buckwheat	 32-076
Rejected	No.	5	wheat	a/c tartarian
buckwheat	 31-030
Rejected No. 3 Canada western garnet
a/c tartarian buckwheat	 33-506
Rejected	No.	4	northern mixed wild
radish	 32-076
Damp No. 1 northern	 25-498
Damp No. 2 northern	 25-809
Damp No. 3 northern	 29-343
Damp No. 4 northern	 32-076
Damp No. 5 wheat	 32-030
Damp No. 6 wheat	 24-511
Damp feed wheat	 24-562
Damp No. 4 special	 29-076
Damp No. 1 soft white spring	 35-498
Damp No. 2 soft white spring	 35-442
Damp No. 4 soft white spring	 33-671
Damp No. 2 Canada western garnet ..	32-380
Damp No. 3 Canada western garnet .. 33-506

Cents per
Grade	Bushel
Damp No. 2 Alberta winter	 30*142
Damp No. 3 Alberta winter	 31-376
Damp	No.	2	Canada	western	amber
durum	 26-380
Damp	No.	3	Canada	western	amber
durum	 32-133
Damp	No.	4	Canada	western	amber
durum	 29-219
Damp	No.	5	Canada	western	amber
durum	 26-900
Damp	No.	6	Canada	western	amber
durum	 26-837
Damp No. 1 mixed grain	 29-562
Damp No. 1 mixed wheat	 26-592
Damp No. 4 mixed wheat	 26-554
Damp No. 5 mixed wheat	 26-716
Damp No. 4 northern heating	 27-076
Damp No. 5 wheat heating	 28-030
Damp No. 6 wheat heating	 23-511
Damp feed wheat heating	 23-562
Damp	No.	2	Canada	western	amber
durum heating	 24-380
Damp	No.	3	Canada	western	amber
durum heating	 25-133
Damp	No.	4	Canada	western	amber
durum heating	 24-219
Damp	No.	5	Canada	western	amber
durum heating	 22-900
Damp	No.	6	Canada	western	amber
durum heating	 25-837
Damp rejected No. 1 northern	 28-498
Damp rejected No. 3 northern	 32-343
Damp rejected No. 4 northern	 32-076
Damp rejected No. 5 wheat	 31-030
Damp rejected No. 6 wheat	 25-511
Damp rejected feed wheat	 25-562
Damp rejected No. 2 Canada western
amber durum	 29-380
Damp rejected No. 4 Canada western
amber durum	 29-219
Damp rejected No. 4 Canada western
amber durum mixed earth	 29-219
Damp rejected No. 3 northern mixed
heated	 32-343
Damp rejected No. 4 northern mixed
heated	 32-076
Damp	rejected	No.	5	wheat	mixed
heated	 31-030
Damp	rejected	No.	6	wheat	mixed
heated	 25-511
Damp rejected feed wheat mixed heated 25-562 Damp rejected No. 2 Canada western
amber durum mixed heated	 29-380
Damp rejected No. 3 Canada western
amber durum mixed heated	 30-133
Damp rejected No. 4 Canada western
amber durum mixed heated	 29-219
Damp rejected No. 5 Canada western
amber durum mixed heated	 25-900
Damp rejected No. 6 Canada western
amber durum mixed heated	 27-837
Damp rejected No. 3 northern mixed
heated and heating	 33-343
Damp	rejected	No.	5	wheat	mixed
heated and heating	 32-030
Damp	rejected	No.	6	wheat	mixed
heated and heating	 26-511
Damp rejected feed wheat mixed
heated and heating	 26-562
Damp rejected No. 3 Canada western amber	durum	mixed	heated	and
heating	 31-133
Damp rejected No. 4 Canada western amber	durum	mixed	heated	and
heating	 30-219
Damp rejected No. 5 Canada western amber	durum	mixed	heated	and
heating	 26-900
Wheat
Cents per
Grade	Bushel
Damp rejected No. 6 Canada western amber durum mixed heated and
heating	 28-837
Damp rejected No. 5 wheat mixed
heated and rotten kernels	 32-030
Damp rejected No. 4 northern a/c musty 32-076 Damp rejected No. 5 Canada western
amber durum musty	 25-900
Damp rejected No. 6 wheat mixed rotten
kernels	 25-511
Damp rejected feed wheat sprouted ..	25-562
Damp rejected No. 4 northern rejected
mixed heated and musty	 33-076
Damp rejected No. 4 Canada western amber durum mixed heated rejected
a/c ergot		 29-219
Damp smutty	No. 3 northern	
34-343Damp smutty	No. 4 northern	
34-076Damp smutty	No. 5 wheat	
31-030Damp smutty	No. 6 wheat	
25-511Damp smutty	feed wheat	
25-562
Damp smutty No. 3 Canada western
amber durum	 32-133
Damp smutty No. 4 Canada western
amber durum	 31-219
Damp smutty No. 5 Canada western
amber durum	 25-900
Damp smutty rejected No. 4 northern ..	31-076
Damp smutty rejected No. 6 wheat
heated	 25-511
Damp smutty rejected feed wheat
mixed heated	 25-562
Damp smutty rejected No. 4 Canada
western amber durum mixed heated 28-219 Damp smutty rejected No. 4 Canada western amber durum mixed heated
and heating	 25-219
Smutty No. 1 northern	 30-498
Smutty No. 2 northern	 30-809
Smutty No. 3 northern	 34-343
Smutty No. 4 northern	 34-076
Smutty No. 5 wheat	 31-030
Smutty No. 6 wheat	 25*511
Smutty feed wheat	 25-562
Smutty No. 3 Canada western garnet ..	35-506
Smutty No. 1 Alberta red winter	 35-498
Smutty No. 2 Alberta winter	 35-142
Smutty No. 3 Alberta winter	 36-376
Smutty No. 4 Alberta winter	 33-306
Smutty No. 2 Canada western amber
durum	 31-380
Smutty No. 3 Canada western amber
durum	 32-133
Smutty No. 4 Canada western amber
durum	 31-219
Smutty No. 5 Canada western amber
durum	 25-900
Smutty rejected No. 2 northern	 26-809
Smutty rejected No. 3 northern	 30-343
Smutty rejected No. 4 northern	 30-076
Smutty rejected No. 5 wheat	 28-030
Smutty rejected No. 6 wheat	 24-511
Smutty rejected No. 5 Canada western
garnet	 31-506
Smutty rejected No. 4 Canada western
amber durum	 27-219
Smutty rejected No. 5 Canada western
amber durum	 28-900
Smutty rejected No. 2 northern mixed
heated	 26-809
Smutty rejected No. 5 wheat mixed and
rotten kernels	 26-030
Smutty rejected No. 6 wheat mixed
rotten kernels	 24-511
Dried No. 4 northern	 35-076
Dried No. 5 wheat	 32-030
Sample red spring broken	 39-498
Sample durum broken	 39-498
1130

Wheat
Cents per
Grade	Bushel
Sample red spring earth	 42-498
Sample red spring weedstains	 42-498
Sample red spring heated	 39-498
Sample durum heated	 39-498
Sample red spring mixed heated and
heating	 39-498
Sample red spring mixed rotten kernels 41-498 Sample durum mixed rotten kernels ... 41-498 Sample red spring mixed rotten kernels
mildew	 43-498
Sample red spring a/c tartarian buckwheat	 43 - 498
Sample durum and barley heated	 39-498
Sample red spring broken heated	 43-498
Damp sample red spring weedstains .. 49-498 Damp sample red spring rotten kernels 48-498
Damp sample durum rusty	 49.498
Damp heated red spring mixed heated 46.498 Damp sample durum mixed heated ....	46 [DOT] 498
Damp sample red spring mixed heated
and heating	 46-498
Damp sample durum mixed heated and
heating	 46.498
Damp sample red spring mixed heated
and rusty	 48-498
Damp sample red spring heated and
heating rotten kernels	 52.498
Damp sample red spring heated rotten
kernels	 50.498
Tough sample red spring weedstains .. 42-498 Tough sample red spring mixed heated 39.498
Tough sample durum mixed heated _____ 39-498
Tough sample red spring mixed heated
and heating	 39-498
Tough sample red spring rotten kernels 41-498
Tough sample durum broken	 39-498
Smutty sample red spring broken wheat 39.498 Damp smutty sample red spring mixed
heated	 46.498
Damp smutty sample durum mixed
heated	 46.498


John George Diefenbaker: The
minister mentioned that some 70 million bushels of feed wheat and some 25 million bushels of millable wheat had been transferred to the 1951-52 pool.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: That being so, was that amount transferred at a value, or will there be a further amount distributable out of the 1950-51 crop, even though distributed in 1952, in respect of that wheat, when sold?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply I would say that those grades were transferred at a price, as is provided by section 24(a) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the price?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price for milling grades was the price at which that grain had been sold for future delivery. In other words, there were outstanding contracts covering all that grain. And there were many prices, perhaps two hundred prices; different prices for every grade. But all that grain had been covered by contracts for future delivery, and the price at which the grain was transferred

was the contract price, less an allowance for carrying and other charges that might accrue before the grain is delivered.
In the case of feed grain, about 20 million bushels was covered by future contracts. That was transferred at the asking price of the wheat board on October 20, less an allowance to cover carrying charges and marketing risks-a fairly substantial allowance.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the other
50 million?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was transferred at the asking price of the wheat board on October 20, less an allowance to cover carrying charges and marketing risks.
[Later]:
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Argue:: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his very comprehensive statement. In view of the fact that the final prices for the various grades of wheat for 1950-51 are substantially under world prices and the fact that domestic wheat going into Canadian consumption is being held at the international wheat agreement ceiling-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, he is making a statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: -will the government consider increasing the present price of wheat going into domestic consumption?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has made a statement for propaganda purposes which is not correct. The answer to the question is no.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a question of privilege, I made a correct statement, and it was not for propaganda purposes.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, have been or are being taken to alleviate the serious mounting unemployment in London, Ontario?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the seriousness of the unemployment situation is as great as my hon. friend implies in his question, but 1 can assure him that we are keeping in close touch with the situation.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Minister of Public Works brought down a return to an order of the house made on June 21, 1950, for a copy of any and all valuations obtained by the government on the Alvin building in Vancouver, B.C. The return brought down merely gives the figures of the different valuations. As a matter of fact, I had been given these figures by the deputy minister of public works by correspondence in July of last year and had written back to him asking for copies of the valuations, which is what is called for by the order of the house. Can the Minister of Public Works tell me when I shall be able to get copies of these different valuations?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, my attention was called to this and I was asking myself what the hon. member wished to have. He asked for copies of valuations by seven or eight firms, and we did give the amounts of the different valuations. I do not know if I have a copy of the specifications and could go into every detail. However, I want to meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman and I shall [DOT] see if I can give exactly what he wants.


Howard Charles Green: I presume that each of these valuators would send in a written valuation with the reasons therefor. The return asked for a copy of these valuations as given by the valuators.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall do my best to give particulars of that. Perhaps I can also bring in the fact that this building is now worth nearly $2 million.



GOVERNMENT BONDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to make a statement in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on Friday. He referred to a press report of a decline in the market prices of long-term government bonds-not, of course, Canada savings bonds, which have a fixed value at all times, but marketable bonds which may be bought and sold at prices agreed upon by buyers and sellers. The hon. member said that this press report suggested that the decline in such prices had been caused by interference on
Inquiries of the Ministry the part of the government or of the Bank of Canada, and he asked for an assurance that this was not the case, that, as he put it, "bonds issued at $100 would not become worth less than $100 as a result of government policy."
In replying to the hon. member at the time I pointed out that the very press report to which he referred contained a denial of the original suggestion, but I promised to look into the matter further and make a statement on it today. I find there is little to be added to my previous statement, but I am glad to give the assurance requested, namely, that it is not the policy of the government, or of the Bank of Canada, to cause a fall-or, for that matter, a rise-in the market price of government bonds. That price, in the interval between the time of issue of the bonds and the date on which they fall due for payment, is a reflection of varying conditions which affect the desire of bondholders to sell and of other persons to buy. Hon. members will recall that market prices rose after the war, at times as high as 105 for the longest-dated bonds, and remained above 100 for more than five years. Since last March, however, the prices of the longer-dated bonds have been several points below 100, though the shorter-dated issues have remained at or close to par.
The hon. member referred to the fact that people had been encouraged to buy these marketable bonds, victory bonds, on the basis that they would be freely negotiable and that up to the present time they have been. I can assure him that there has been no change in that regard at all. In this connection, I would refer to the discussion which took place in this house on June 20 last during which the minister gave a full explanation in regard to these matters. I can assure the house that there will always be a market for government of Canada bonds, not at a fixed level of prices but at prices which vary from time to time in accordance with conditions of supply and demand in the market. These conditions depend on many factors, including the judgment of investors as to the revenue obtainable from alternative investments which may prove attractive either to existing holders or to potential buyers of government bonds. If hon. members have seen what has been happening in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, they will realize that it is not government policy or central bank policy in any western country to seek to maintain a fixed level of world prices or interest rates.
In this connection, the hon. member for Kamloops referred to assertions in press reports "that the Bank of Canada formerly supported the market for Dominion of Canada

Inquiries of the Ministry bonds by issuing quotations of the prices at which it would purchase bonds of various issues." This apparently refers, although somewhat incorrectly, to a wartime practice which terminated nearly four years ago. It was not a practice of supporting the market, but a question of trading methods. During the war the practice was for the Bank of Canada to notify dealers each day the prices at which, subject to change at any time, it was prepared to buy bonds, and similarly the prices at which it was prepared to sell. These prices were changed from time to time in accordance with market conditions. In January 1948 the bank announced that it was reverting to its pre-war practice of dealing, in general, only in response to bids and offers initiated by other buyers and sellers in the market, and there has been no change in its usual practice since that time.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity also of referring to the results of the sale of Canada savings bonds, sixth series, during the campaign period which has just closed. As hon. members know, these are not marketable bonds whose price fluctuates according to factors of supply and demand, but special savings instruments which not only provide a substantial annual return to their holders by way of interest but have the special feature of being cashable at any time at the price originally paid.
The government could not, of course, pay a relatively high interest rate, appropriate to long-term bonds, on an unlimited amount of what are virtually demand instruments, that is, payable on demand at the option of the holder. Accordingly, the amount of Canada savings bonds that may be held by any individual has always been limited. The underlying purpose of these bonds is to encourage and facilitate small savings and to provide a convenient and safe method by which large numbers of Canadians may build up out of current incomes a fund of personal resources for future use, and with the further advantage of a guaranteed value at any time in case of need to draw upon such savings before the final maturity of the bonds.
The limit in recent years has been $1,000 per holding of each series. This year the limit was raised to $5,000 in view of the desirability of giving every encouragement to new saving in the largest possible volume as an offset to inflationary pressures.
The results to date of the sale of the sixth series are as follows: In the payroll savings field, bonds to a total value of $168 million have been subscribed for by 677,500 employees in establishments for which definite statistics are available. This is an increase over last


year of 12 per cent in dollars and of 5 per cent in number of subscribers. The foregoing figures relate largely to bonds to be paid for by regular monthly or weekly instalments set aside out of wages and salaries during the next twelve months.
In the general sales field, covering sales by investment dealers, banks, and other authorized agents to their customers and depositors, figures reported from October 15 to November 16 amount to $149 million from
190,000	individual purchasers. This represents an increase of 52 per cent over the same period of last year in dollar amount, chiefly as a result of raising the limit on individual holdings, but there was a reduction of 11 per cent in number of purchasers.
In total, therefore, during the principal selling period this year 867,500 Canadians have bought Canada savings bonds to the amount of $317 million and these figures represent increases of 2 per cent in number of purchasers and of 27 per cent in dollar amount. I am sure hon. members will agree that such results are gratifying, and indeed reassuring, and that those companies and organizations that have participated in providing facilities for the purchase of Canada savings bonds and the individuals who have taken part in the work of organization are entitled to take satisfaction in a worth-while job of real value to their fellow citizens and to Canada as a whole.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if he has any figures with respect to the earlier series, as to whether there has been any substantial cashing in of earlier bonds in order to purchase the sixth series with its higher interest rate?


James Sinclair: I have no information on that, but if the hon. member wants the information I will get whatever is available for him.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs arising out of the statement he made on Friday in which he mentioned widows among those who would be entitled to the increase in the basic pension under the Pension Act, but did not make any reference to that other very worthy group commonly referred to as dependent war mothers. Will these war mothers be included among the recipients of the increase in the basic pension, and if so what will be the percentage of their increase?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: If I understand my hon. friend's question properly, he is referring to pensions paid to persons who are termed dependent parents under the Pension Act. As he knows, these pensions are not paid as of right but are awarded by the pension commission after investigation into the need for such a pension, and the amount is determined by the commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister indicate whether the proposed amendments involving increases in other groups will apply to this group?


Hugues Lapointe: The amendments propose changes in the basic rates of pension, the amount of which is set by the act itself. The amount of the pension to be paid to the dependent parent is not determined in the act but is determined by the pension commission. However, there is a ceiling in the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will there be any provision for varying the present ceiling? Will there be any benefit at all to this group I have mentioned as a result of the proposed amendments?


Hugues Lapointe: I think my hon. friend will see what the bill contains when it is put before the house.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Quelch.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as the house will appreciate, we are discussing at this stage of the throne speech debate the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), which brings into sharp relief the whole question of veterans affairs and the welfare particularly of two groups of veterans, the disability pensioner and the recipient of war veterans allowance. The position of the disability pensioner, which was the subject of so much discussion and agitation, has been improved as outlined in the announcement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) on Friday, which indicated that recipients of disability pensions will be granted an increase in their basic rate of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 35 per cent, taking the general average between single pensioners and married pensioners.
The Address-Mr. Fulton
The house and the country of course welcome the announcement of those pension increases. Therefore I am not going to debate the question of disability pensioners as a separate issue nor am I going to debate the question of who is responsible for the results reflected in the announcement made by the minister on Friday. In my view that question does not need debate because the answer to it is self-evident. The Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations throughout the country are entirely responsible for the result announced on Friday last. A very short review of the history of this matter establishes that. The increase was requested last spring by the Legion in the veterans affairs committee. It had been requested previously in a brief submitted by the Legion last fall; but nothing was done. In fact action to increase the basic rates of pension had been consistently refused by the government until the Legion undertook, this summer, a further very strenuous and successful campaign to force the government to change its view.
It is perfectly obvious that the government yielded as a result of the mounting pressure which followed that campaign, so it was that effort on the part of the Legion and other veterans organizations which had the result announced last Friday. However, although I think it is important to keep the record quite clear in that regard, namely, that it was the result of the pressure of the veterans' organizations themselves, nevertheless that does not alter the fact that the house, the country and veterans' organizations generally welcome the action which the government has now taken with respect to disability pensioners.
But, Mr. Speaker, the recognition which has now been given to the need for an increase in the basic rate of disability pensions serves in large measure to emphasize the hardship being suffered at the present time by war veterans allowance recipients, which hardship has not been alleviated in any way by any action yet taken by the government. Indeed all we have is the promise of another committee, but not even a committee for the present session. It is to be a committee which will not commence its study until the session of 1952 and will not have the opportunity until then to recommend alleviation of the hardships being experienced by these veterans. It is about them particularly that I wish to speak today.
The hardship being suffered by war veterans allowance recipients arises from two sources. The first is the inadequacy of the level of payment, namely a maximum of $40 a month for single men and $70 a month

The Address-Mr. Fulton for married men. This problem must be approached bearing in mind the fact that the recipients of war veterans allowance frequently have no other source of income, which means that a single man is compelled to live on $40 a month and a married man on $70 a month.
I bring to witness here no less an authority than the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen, in terms of the pre-war dollar, to about 45 cents. Therefore what we are doing with the present rate of war veterans allowance is to compel a single man to live on something less than $20 a month in terms of the pre-war dollar or if married on something between $30 and $35 a month in terms of real purchasing power.
The second source of hardship results from the means test which is still applied to payment of veterans allowance, and compels many men, who could supplement the allowance, to live at the starvation levels to which I have referred. I suggest that the time has long passed when this situation and these hardships should have been relieved. It is not good enough to tell the recipients of war veterans allowance that they must wait until next summer some time-until after the studies and recommendations of a committee have been implemented. Their needs are perfectly obvious now. They do not need a committee to emphasize them or to establish what they are.
The claims for relief of these men can best be seen, if we deal with them under the same two categories. First, let us deal with the inadequacy of the level of payment. Surely if we recognize, as the War Veterans Allowance Act does, that the earning capacity of these men has been reduced on account of their service in the armed forces of their country, then we simply cannot justify the present legislation which compels them to exist at starvation levels. If we are prepared to recognize that they are entitled to something for the sacrifices which they have made and for the impairment of their health and their earning power, then surely we can be generous in the treatment that we mete out to them. In their recommendation, with which I am fully in agreement, the Canadian Legion has, I think, stated the very minimum to which these men are entitled, namely, that the minimum under the war veterans allowance be increased to $50 for a single man and $100 for a married man.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And even that is not enough.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then the other course of action which is necessary to relieve the hardship being suffered is in connection with the means test. I think this should be called a

"mean test" because, when it is maintained at its present level, it is indicative of a mean and narrow approach to this problem, and one which is not worthy of a government which, in other respects, when pressure has been applied, seems prepared to treat our veterans generously. Let us not be mean to the old war veteran. Let us treat him with generosity equal to that with which we treat other veterans. Surely this means test which compels men, who might otherwise be able to supplement their income, to live at starvation levels should either be eliminated or should at least be raised to sensible and decent levels so that war veterans allowance recipients might live decently and in a dignified manner instead of at bare subsistence levels, eking out the last few years of their lives in poverty.
When you consider what is going to happen even under the increases which have been announced recently with respect to old age pension and disability pension, you can see the iniquities of the means test at its present level. In the course of the discussions on the old age pension, the Minister of Veterans Affairs made it quite clear that the increased level of old age pension is not going to benefit the war veterans allowance recipients because their income is still limited by the maximum permissible under the means test regulations to $50 a month in the case of a single man and something less than $100 a month in the case of a married man.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not considerably less than that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Even with other allowable income, it is under $100 a month; actually it comes to $1,100 a year in the case of a married man on war veterans allowance. And when you read the evidence given by the deputy minister of veterans affairs before the veterans affairs committee at the session in the spring of this year, it becomes clear that, even in the case of the war veterans allowance recipient who is also in receipt of a disability pension, the same means test applies; so that the increase in the present level of disability pension which was announced by the minister on Friday will be of no benefit to the war veterans allowance recipient because he will still be subject to the same over-all limitation on his income.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) perfectly reflects the attitude which should be shown by this house and by the government to the man on war veterans allowance. It is time that the war veterans allowance legislation was

revised-and it should not be left until next spring; it should be done now-by increasing the levels of the payment and by raising the means test substantially, if not eliminating it altogether. With respect to the hon. member's amendment, may I say that I think it is a good one-I must say that I wish I had thought of it myself-and I intend to support it.
To turn from this matter to another consideration, it seems to me that, in advocating certain increases in payments under war veterans allowance and in contemplating the increased social security payments which have recently been approved by this house through the Old Age Security Act, we must turn our minds also to a consideration of how the country is going to finance those measures. I do not think it is responsible action on the part of members on either side of the house simply to advocate increased payments without being prepared to indicate in general terms how they think those increased payments can be met. I do not mean that we should lay down a blueprint, because it is not the responsibility of the opposition to lay down, in black and white, just how we think such details should be worked out; but I believe that we are not justified in constantly advocating increased social security and other welfare payments unless we are prepared to recognize the problem that they create, and which must be met, namely, the problem of paying for them. It is to that problem that I should now like to turn and to which I should like to invite the consideration of the house for the remainder of the time that I am going to take this afternoon.
This problem must be approached in the light of the fact that we have undertaken, and have committed this country to, a continuing level of expenditures which, when you sit down and think of what it means, almost staggers the imagination. We are a country of fourteen million population, committed to two undertakings alone which are going to tax all our energies to finance. If we do not start now to work out and to take positive steps to meet the expenditures involved in these undertakings, I believe that they may well bankrupt this country. Those two undertakings are the social security measures to which we are now committed and the expenditures in connection with our defence effort and the obligations which we have assumed to the North Atlantic treaty countries, of finding raw materials, arms and equipment to meet the threat of aggression.
I am not talking blue ruin, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that nobody will take it that I am
The Address-Mr. Fulton doing so, or that I am advocating decreasing the present social security commitments of this country. What I am suggesting is that if we do not face the facts squarely and recognize that we are committed to really tremendous expenditures we may well wake up some day, when things are not quite so prosperous and easy as they are now, with a disastrous situation staring us in the face. I am urging that we face the problem now, and start on measures which will enable us to absorb these expenditures into our general economy.
First, a few figures to show the levels of expenditure to which we are committed at present. For social security we are now committed to an annual expenditure of $735 million in round figures. These figures are taken from the estimates of three departments, the Department of Labour-and there taking account only of unemployment insurance expenditures-the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The estimates of these departments for the year 1951-52 total $735 million.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have assumed recently under the amended old age pensions , legislation an annual expenditure by the dominion government of a further $230 million for old age pensions to those of 70 years and over, and an estimated $25 million annually for the dominion's portion of the pensions payable to those between the ages of 65 and 69. Under the Department of National Health and Welfare, for old age pensions and related legislation, we are thus committeed to an additional expenditure at present levels of $255 million a year. Then under the announcement made on Friday by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), and according to the best figures I have been able to get, it is estimated we shall have to find an additional $30 million a year for the increase in disability pensions. These two heads of increased expenditure total $285 million a year. When this is added to the present payments for old age pensions, disability pensions, unemployment insurance and so on, we are committed to an annual expenditure of $1,020 million for health and welfare services and pensions.
Then, under the heading of defence we have been told that Canada is expecting to spend for herself and her allies something in the neighbourhood of $5 billion, spread over the next three years. Simply to take general averages may of course be somewhat misleading, but we have to work with the figures we are given. If you average that out it comes to $1,750 million a year, for our

The Address-Mr. Fulton own defence expenditures and to meet our commitments to our North Atlantic allies. By simple arithmetic we find that our commitments under these two headings alone, and which are entirely outside what I might call the ordinary activities of government, total $2,770 million a year, or nearly 6 times all our annual expenditures for all the activities of the federal government in an average pre-war year.
I realize that the defence expenditure is a difficult liability to calculate, because this very heavy level may be only the result of the initial program upon which we have embarked to catch up on the backlog. But, Mr. Speaker, no one in this house, and I do not think anyone in any of the North Atlantic treaty countries, can forecast how long the cold war may continue. It may continue for 15, 25 or 50 years. We hope that we will never get beyond cold war, but we have to be ready to continue our efforts under the cold war indefinitely in order finally to convince the would-be aggressor, Russia, that it would not be wise to resort to a hot war. We have, therefore, to be prepared to continue, for however long it may take to bring t that home to Russia, this tremendous level ' of expenditures on what I might call the extraordinary activities of government and not the normal governmental heads of expenditure, which amount to something in the neighbourhood of $2-5 billion or $3 billion a year. And we must really start to grapple now with the problem of financing it if we are to avoid waking up one day and finding the economy of our country facing possible ruin.
How are we going to meet this problem? I know that it is treading on dangerous ground to embark upon the realm of economics, but I suggest that we can only meet it by increasing the real wealth and real income of this country. And I maintain that the real wealth of the country is not money. Today money is suffering from the inflationary pressures which have been generated, and in this connection is therefore only of questionable value as a partial measure-it can only be a partial measure because its value is going down all the time-of the volume of business and commercial transactions. It is not an index of the real wealth of the country. It is true that in terms of money our national income has increased something like four times over pre-war levels, but our real product has only doubled. The increase in our national money income is largely the result of inflationary tendencies, so we cannot take any comfort from the fact that it has quadrupled over the past few years.


When refined to its real elements, Mr. Speaker, real wealth is found to be the combination of the productive capacity and energy of our people and the net result of the application of that productive capacity to our raw materials in the creation of end products. In other words, you get real wealth when you bring man and raw material together and produce something. When you do that, then you are building wealth. Only by increasing and accelerating this process can we provide the means of meeting the enormous expenditures that we have been considering.
We must then solve the problem by a positive program for the development and conservation of our resources. So far as I can see, that in a nutshell is the great need of this country-a positive program for the development and conservation of our resources. Conservation must go hand in hand with development, because we cannot contemplate the possibility of exhausting our resources in a matter of a few years by wasteful methods. Indeed, there are many aspects to the problem and it is difficult not to get deeply involved.
There is the problem of immigration; there is the problem of the limitation of resources; there is the problem of finances of a development program. But the main issue with which we are faced is that only by the development of our resources to increase the real wealth of the country shall we be able to meet the commitments which we have undertaken now.
On looking back on what has been said in the past as to the development of Canada, we find that over the years there have been many different visions of the future of this country. I go back to one which was expressed nearly a hundred years ago, in the confederation debates of the year 1864, by Sir E. P. Tache, the prime minister of the united provinces of Canada. Introducing the resolutions which were adopted at the Quebec conference of that year, and which led directly to the enactment of the British North America Act, he said:
We had vast forests not yet opened or occupied, and yet we had a population numbering over 21 millions of souls. With such an extent of territory and so fertile a soil, he had no doubt whatever that in less than half a century Canada would embrace a population equal to that of the large empires of the old world.
That statement was made nearly a hundred years ago. Then, at about the turn of the century, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, fifty years later than Tache and fifty years before our own day, said that the twentieth century belonged to Canada. But what is the position? We are still a country of only some fourteen million of people. We have not realized the vision

The Address-Mr. Fulton
of Sir E. P. Tache of a hundred years ago, nor the vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier of fifty years ago, nor the visions which inspired the fathers of confederation. Our population cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be even approaching, let alone equalling, that of the large empires of the old world.
We may be permitted our present-day vision of what Canada should be, even while criticizing the government for having failed to get further along the road to meeting the older visions. Indeed, not only must we face stern reality in the fact that Canada is committed to these obligations which we have been discussing, but we should supplement that stern necessity by a vision of our own of what this country could be in the future. If I may in very general terms paint a picture of what I see for Canada, I see her as a nation of not less than fifty million people, all profitably employed in a well-balanced economy; not an inferior or lesser partner, but becoming over the years the very centre and the senior partner in the British commonwealth of nations, which thus becomes again a real force for peace in the world. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is our manifest destiny. In support of that portion of the picture, I draw on no less an authority than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who, when speaking in Toronto to the Empire club last week, outlined in very definite terms his concept of the importance and the position which the British commonwealth of nations can play in the world today. He said:
Everything possible should be done to maintain the British commonwealth-this greatest agency for peace in the world.
I quote that merely as a reference to show it is apparent that both sides of the house share this view of the extreme importance of maintaining the integrity and the reality of the commonwealth.
As I say, in my view, over the course of the next few years, if we bring about those conditions which make it possible for Canada to fulfil her destiny, this country will become in fact the senior partner and the centre of that commonwealth. But it is unfortunately true that as yet we have barely made a start in terms of what could be accomplished in respect to the development of our country. It is in the light of the tasks which confront us, the stern necessity of meeting the obligations which we have assumed as well as the desirability of realizing the vision which we may all dream, that I urge it as the duty of the government to plan for the development of our resources, to encourage the settlement of our country and to help provide the means by which men can be enabled to work on
the materials which are to hand. It is the responsibility of government, in addition to formulating an immigration policy and pressing on with it, to embark upon such programs as soil conservation, irrigation, flood control, power development, and immigration and settlement generally, to bring men and materials together in this great country.
There are a number of such projects along these lines which immediately come to mind. For instance, there is the tremendous St. Lawrence seaway project. At the moment-I am delighted to see that we are committed to getting along with the development of the navigation side of that project. That is a step which all of us must support, although it is unfortunate that the United States is not going to be associated with us. However, at the same time that we embark upon the seaway project, we should give our attention to the development of the power resources of that area, which would be another means of contributing to the development of Canada and to meeting our commitments to our North Atlantic allies.
There is the South Saskatchewan river project, of which we have heard a great deal in the house lately. 1 am not qualified to discuss all the implications or the possibilities of that project, but I am sure that enough has been said here to establish that the benefits in terms of additional resources and the development of our economy would be tremendous. It is to be regretted that the government has temporized and delayed and made of this apparently a political issue rather than approaching it with a spirit of vigour and determination as a national obligation to contribute to the development, the growth and the rounding out of the economy of our prairie regions.
Then, moving west, we have the potentialities of the Columbia river and the Fraser river basins. The Fraser river is the one which interests me particularly. It has been said by those who have made a study of this matter that the Fraser river represents the last and greatest area of undeveloped power potential in the settled portion of Canada. Those of us who know the river will agree with that statement of fact. That tremendous body of water at the present time in its journey of some 850 miles to the sea from its source is virtually unharnessed. About all that has been done so far to make use of the Fraser is to make a beginning on the problem of facilitating the passage of the salmon from the sea to the spawning grounds through these turbulent waters. When you think of what it could mean in terms of power development, with an integrated program of irrigation and flood control as well, it simply defies imagination.
1138	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dumas
On another occasion when there is more time, Mr. Speaker, I will develop these thoughts in more detail, but I do not wish to take too much of the time of the house, or go too deeply into detail now, even if I were an expert, which I am not. Perhaps none of us is. I am certainly not qualified to go in great detail into the technical aspects of it. But this I do know-that the potentialities and the resources of that Fraser river basin of British Columbia, in common with the northern areas of this country generally, are almost totally unsuspected and untapped by the people of Canada. The great challenge to develop them which faces us cannot be neglected, cannot be left unaccepted, any longer.
We are faced with the necessity of providing for huge expenditures on social security projects and on defence, and to meet our commitments to supply raw materials and equipment to our North Atlantic allies. Perhaps that is the most urgent reason why we must face this problem of developing our country's resources. But in addition to that there is the vision of a great Canada which all of us may dream, a Canada which is the centre of the British commonwealth of nations, a great nation in her own right. We see her as the magnet to which all peace-loving nations are drawn, and particularly as the unit around which the commonwealth, which means so much to us, has solidified and stands as a contribution to world peace. In short, we see Canada as a nation whose people are not afraid to accept the challenge of the future, the challenge which problems of the world today pose for us. We have here a nation whose people are justly confident that their ideas are a threat to no one, but that their potential will be a real contribution to world peace and prosperity. We must then go forward, prepared to meet the challenge and to take action to develop the resources which will bring such inestimable good to the whole of mankind.
(Translation):


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am a late-comer. I feel, however, it is my duty to say a few words on the address in reply. Because I shall be brief, I hope to gain the sympathy of the house.
To the congratulations extended to the mover of the address (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) I wish, first of all, to add my own. They performed their task most tactfully. As do many other members I envy the hon. member for Beauharnois his eloquence. He spoke very feelingly of


unity. My good friend from Yukon and the Mackenzie River district took us on a trip to the far north, that beautiful and great country with unlimited natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, I wish right now to fulfil a very agreeable duty.
On behalf of the veterans of my constituency, of their associations and in my own name I wish to congratulate and thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) for the announcement he made in the house last Friday.
I congratulate the minister for the magnificent way in which he explained to his colleagues the proposed amendments to the basic rates of veterans' pensions. It was clear and accurate that he obtained a generous increase. I also thank him for his great devotion to and affection for his comrades in arms.
In addition, at the beginning of the present session, the Minister of Veterans Affairs informed the house that in the early days of the 1952 session a parliamentary committee will be set up to examine proposed amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, amendments which will be made retroactive to January 1, 1952.
The veterans of my constituency and myself would have liked to see this act amended during the present session. However, having listened to the minister's explanations, we well understand that it would be quite unreasonable to proceed any faster.
The main reason for which this second session is being held in 1951 is the old age security bill, which will soon take its place on our statute books. I wish to say that the people of the constituency of Villeneuve are grateful to the government for having hastened the adoption of this measure designed to ensure the security of our older people. In this connection I also wish to congratulate the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in particular, as well as the chairman and members of this house who served on that committee.
The speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, also forecasts a number of very important and far-reaching measures, such as the St. Lawrence seaway project, the construction of a causeway across the strait of Canso, an irrigation project beneficial to the people of southern Saskatchewan, an amendment to the

Railway Act which will give effect to the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation, and a bill to give effect to certain recommendations of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences.
Included in the speech from the throne are many other measures, of no less importance, too numerous to mention here.
Mr. Speaker, we shall realize, on prorogation day, that the government was wise indeed in calling the members for a second session in 1951.
Of all the measures I have mentioned, with the exception of the old age security act, the most important is undoubtedly the one relating to the St. Lawrence waterway project. Everyone is aware of all the difficulties involved, both in the past and now, by the construction of a seaway in our great river. The federal government has done more than its share of the preliminary steps; today, this same government gives us the assurance that the project will soon become a reality.
That gigantic project, to be undertaken at an estimated cost of $700 million, will permit the development of considerable hydroelectric power and a better use of that great waterway.
The St. Lawrence river can be compared to a first-class highway, but unfortunately certain obstacles prevent us from benefiting fully from it. The development of the deep waterway will permit the transportation, among other things, of iron ore from Labrador and eastern Quebec. The transportation of that ore will create considerable traffic in the direction opposite to that of the existing traffic, thus bringing about a better balance which should be greatly beneficial to our economy.
On the orders of the day we find a government motion providing for the setting up of a crown corporation called the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
The administration of this corporation will no doubt be entrusted to men of proven competence. I am no seer, but I do not think I am mistaken in assuming that engineers will be included in the executive of this most important corporation or will at least be attached to it. I will make so bold, Mr. Speaker, as to express the wish that one of them will be a surveyor.
Here is why, Mr. Speaker, I make that suggestion. Some of the powers which the St. Lawrence seaway authority will have,
The Address-Mr. Dumas and which are set out in the motion I have just mentioned, are as follows: to expropriate; to construct, maintain and operate all necessary works.
In the exercise of those powers, the corporation will often be faced with border problems, either international or interprovincial. Property limits, the preservation of monuments and many other complex surveying problems will also be involved. The commission's prestige would grow and its work be greatly facilitated if a member of the corporation were to be a qualified surveyor. It will also create a feeling of confidence among owners of adjoining properties, whether it be the government as represented by the two provinces concerned, or the farmers.
In addition, even if the members of the corporation are to be paid for their services, as will certainly be the case, the honour of being a member of so important an executive body will reflect upon the professional groups to which these men belong.
What a wonderful opportunity is offered our country to acknowledge the services rendered in the past by the land-surveyors. They played a great part in the development of our country and blazed the trail for the explorers. They were explorers themselves and true pioneers.
For these reasons I hope that land-surveyors will be represented on the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
The building of a causeway across the strait of Canso is a project long awaited by the people of the maritimes. This project will facilitate the transport of goods from Nova Scotia as it will make it easier to carry into that province goods from the central and western provinces. Everybody will gain by it.
Our friends from the west, more particularly those from the southern part of Saskatchewan, will see before long the carrying out of a project on which they set a high value.
As a matter of fact, the building of one or several dams on the Saskatchewan river will allow our friends to reclaim large tracts of unproductive land.
The three projects I referred to, namely the St. Lawrence river project, the building of a causeway across the strait of Canso and the improvements along the Saskatchewan river, are nationally important even though each

The Address-Mr. Dumas may seem to benefit only a particular area. I claim that it would be in the general interest of this country to carry them out as soon as possible. For several reasons my constituents are glad that I support those projects. Our people always welcome any project that may contribute to the development of our resources and to the general progress of Canada. I was highly pleased to hear certain statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) in a speech delivered in this house on October 31 last, as reported on page 581 of Hansard. Dealing with the deepening of the St. Lawrence river, he said:
When that project comes before the house I hope no western member will find it necessary to oppose it.
A little later on, he added:
The justification for the Canadian government taking such action is that the advantages and results of that development will accrue to all the people of Canada, and the sooner we realize that a development of that magnitude in one part of Canada is going to serve all Canada the sooner we will have a more closely knit and more united Canada. I bring up the subject only because the great new industrial development in this country is going to occur in western Canada. We as western members are going to have to come here in the years ahead and ask all members of the house for the same type of support and co-operation that I hope we can now give with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway.
I proudly endorse that statement by the hon. member. We too, in western Quebec, shall very likely come to this house and seek support for some important projects we have in mind and that we hope to carry out with the co-operation of the other parts of our country.
Just a word now about that part of the speech from the throne referring to certain amendments to the railway legislation, following the recommendations made by the royal commission on transportation. I merely wish to remind the house that our district sent representatives to the commission while it was sitting here in Ottawa. In fact, Mr. Gilbert Lebel and Mr. Maurice Lamontagne explained a few abnormalties in the freight rates existing in our district and they submitted a brief in that connection on behalf of the economic guidance council of Abitibi.
In addition, this submission asked for a branch-line of the Canadian National Railways from Rapide des Cedres to Chibou-gamau through Bachelor lake. In this connection, the Turgeon report has this to say on page 133:


Chibougamau Lake Project
In the year 1948 the Canadian National Railways completed the construction of a line about 40 miles in length from Barraute to Rapide des Cedres in the Abitibi region, Quebec. The representative of the Abitibi Economic Planning Council appeared before the commission to submit that the Canadian National Railways should continue construction to Chibougamau lake, through Bachelor lake, a distance of about 165 miles.
The commission has since been informed that the Canadian National Railway Company is considering the matter and is awaiting further information to decide whether potential traffic will warrant the building of the extension.
Mr. Speaker, I now quote from page 135 of the report:
The survival of Canada's railways, both private and government owned, is of essential importance to the nation. When further transportation facilities become necessary in parts of the country not yet supplied, the task of providing them will generally fall to the railways.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, what I said in 1949 and 1950 in connection with the construction of a railroad in that part of the country. There is serious evidence of considerable deposits in that district not only of precious metals like gold and silver but of copper, lead and zinc. In my opinion, that line would be very useful to the district and I believe the Canadian National should undertake the building of that railroad as soon as conditions permit.
As regards the adjustment of rates, the report states on page 134:
Among the representations mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, request is made for freight rate adjustments which are matters for consideration of the railways and also of the Board of Transport Commissioners. The board will no doubt deal with them as part of their task under order in council P.C. 1487.
As fair as freight rate adjustments are concerned I do hope that the representations made by Messrs. Lebel and Lamontagne to the royal commission on transportation will be taken into serious consideration and that the board of transport commissioners will carry out the necessary adjustments.
As for the measures designed to carry out' certain recommendations of the royal commission for the advancement of arts, letters and sciences in Canada, I will only say this much. Highly competent men sat on that commission, they have accomplished a gigantic task, and the recommendations they put forward deserve our most serious consideration.
I could hardly take part in the debate on the speech from the throne without saying a few words of more immediate concern to my constituency.

The cost of living has risen in my constituency as much as elsewhere. With everyone here, I deplore this situation.
As stated by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), "we are all affected by the rise in prices and the situation pleases no one".
On the other hand, the demand for manpower is very high and I hope our people will all be working this coming winter.
The farmers of my constituency keep toiling to clear and improve their farms. The arduous task they undertook is now producing results. However, if we want the progress of the farmers of our district to be on a par with that of industry, we will have to help those who clear the land and make it easier for the farmers to distribute their products.
I know our farmers. I know how steadfast they are, and if we help them ever so little we may be sure that they will do their full share in the development and progress of western Quebec.
The mine worker toils incessantly to produce ever increasing quantities of basic metals which are becoming more and more indispensable to our economy.
The workers in the Rouyn-Noranda, Cadillac, Malartic, Val d'Or-Louvicourt mining area have done very much for the development of that rich area and they expect from us the protection to which they are entitled.
The gold mining industry is going through a difficult period, and producers have to market the precious metal at a price infinitely lower that it should really be. Some mines are operating at a loss just so they can prevent disaster in municipalities depending solely on that industry.
Most of the workers in the region having invested their savings in real estate located in the various1 municipalities, the federal government must do its besit to protect the future of these miners.
Fortunately, in order to overcome the difficulties facing the gold mining industry and the municipalities which depend on it, the government has maintained in force the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. We hope it will remain in force in 1952, with even more generous provisions if possible.
The government cannot lose anything by doing so; in fact it will gain much. Here is the reason why. The gold producers acknowledge their responsibilities. They also parti-
The Address-Mr. Dumas cipate fully in the development of our other mineral resources:	I refer to frequently
used metals like copper, zinc, lead, silver, nickel, etc., which are in such great demand. An example will illustrate what I mean. Let us take the Sullivan Consolidated mine. This typically Canadian enterprise, which produces nothing but gold, is established in my region.
This mine during the years favourable to the gold industry had accumulated a certain working capital. It could have waited, could have accepted government assistance in order to maintain its financial position. But it did not do so. The directors of the company realized there was a strong demand for base metals. They lost no time in investing the capital in prospecting work and development of base metal mines. Thus, the Sullivan Consolidated played an important part in the development of the zinc and copper deposits of the East Sullivan. The same company also advanced a part of the outlay required for the development of important zinc and lead deposits in the Gaspe region. These deposits should be mined before long. In addition, this mine is spending large amounts on prospecting activities in many other parts of the country. I could give many examples.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that government aid to gold mines is well justified since, first of all, it prevents the turning of certain towns into ghost towns and the financial ruin of the majority of our workers. On the other hand, that money is repaid a hundredfold to the country, because it brings about the opening of new base metal mines that produce essential metals for our civilian and military needs.
The government realizes the importance of air transport in our district and, through the Department of Transport, it has provided landing strips near the cities of Rouyn and Val d'Or. The people of my country are grateful to the government for its solicitude in the matter. I must say, however, that in case of war, the Rouyn airport would not be appropriate for jet planes. I wish to draw the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I am confident the Department of Transport would willingly co-operate with the Department of National Defence to complete the work at that airport so as to provide, in case of war, a greater protection for the mining centres in the vicinity of those airports.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the war in Korea, which unfortunately seems to develop into an endless struggle, will end in

The Address-Mr. Fair a just peace before the year is out so that our boys who have answered the call to serve under the command of the United Nations in that country may all come back to celebrate with their families the approaching Christmas and New Year's day.
(Text):


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech debate has now been in progress from time to time for a number of weeks and, judging by the list of speakers still on our desks, we are perhaps going to carry on for some days yet. I believe this is a good thing for, at this particular session, we have no budget to deal with and no estimates, so this is the only occasion on which many of us will have an opportunity to state our grievances.
During the course of the debate many questions have been raised and some legislation has been passed, particularly the legislation providing for the old age pension. I understand that legislation is now being dealt with at the other end of the building, and I hope that on this occasion no such action will be taken as was taken when the first old age pension bill was sent there. I believe the gentlemen at that end of the house now realize the plight of many of our older people, and I hope they will give the bill speedy passage. I shall not be at all disappointed if they should come through with a recommendation to increase the amount of the pension.
During the debate we have had one amendment to the motion disposed of; and on November 7, immediately after that first vote was taken, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) moved the following amendment:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance."
I believe that every veteran in the house today should support that subamendment; and were they all free to express their opinions I believe they would do so. Personally I want to support it in any way I can, even to the extent of paying additional taxes to make that payment possible. Had I previously been in doubt about my stand on this particular subamendment, I had my mind fully made up a week ago yesterday when


we had the Remembrance day service down at the cenotaph. During the time that the governor general took the salute I stood a short distance from where he was on the stand; with him were several cabinet ministers including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). Also with them were the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and some other gentlemen whom I did not know. I know these men are carrying a terrific load today; but as the groups of old-timers, and even the little fellows, passed by, a tinge of bitterness was raised in me when I saw many of these veterans carrying canes which they did not then use. Looking back to the time of the first great war I can remember the great pains taken to find uniforms for and to give training to many of these veterans. Then their supplies were provided for them while they were overseas fighting. Since they came back we have been told of the struggle they had over there, of the mud they had to lie in and of many other things. Even during the second world war we also provided vast sums of money to equip the men who fought over there, and when they came back we gave them a fairly good deal compared with that given to the veterans of the first war. Now I am wondering-and I asked myself this question a week ago Sunday-why we cannot look after these old fellows after they came back, after their health had been broken and after, as a result of conditions that had been permitted in this country, they were not able to save enough during their working days to take care of themselves in their old age. After a man reafches 40 or 45 years of age today, industry no longer wants him. Many of these old veterans had been in industry, and when they reached a certain age they were thrown out. Now they cannot find employment. I feel it is our duty-the duty of this parliament and this government -to supply them with a decent livelihood for the rest of their days.
I was quite satisfied-in fact I did some desk pounding-the other day when the Minister of Veterans Affairs made his announcement-on Friday last I believe-telling us what the legislation will provide for recipients of pensions under the Pension Act. This legislation was perhaps grudgingly brought down in the house because the speech from the throne does not make any mention of it; but because of pressure that was exerted

last session and this session so far, in the house and throughout the country, I believe the government felt compelled to do something for those disability pensioners. That is perhaps not surprising when we realize that the government today, with their approximately 185 members, are here on the strength of a minority of the votes cast in the last election. Hence when the opposition was heeded, perhaps that was only right, because the opposition still represent a majority of votes throughout the country.
The fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs made that announcement on Friday last is, I think, his admission and that of the government that the disability pensioners were not getting enough to keep them going on a decent scale. Having made that admission he also admitted-as did the government indirectly-that the recipients of the war veterans allowance are not getting sufficient to keep them at a decent standard of living. I therefore do not know of any better time than the present to bring in another announcement stating that the government will at this session make an additional payment to recipients of war veterans allowance. There is still plenty of time to do that.
I am fully aware of the fact that the government has stated that, at the 1952 session, a committee on veterans affairs will be set up, and that any action they may take could be made retroactive to January 1 of next year. But while we are having a few days of cold weather and snow at the present time, let the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government not forget that before this committee, which is to be set up next session, will have an opportunity to report under ordinary circumstances, many cold days will have to be endured by the recipients of the present war veterans allowance and many of them will not have enough food, clothing or warmth in their houses to enable them to have the proper standard of living. So why not do it now?
The government has the idea of looking after many other people, but I do not know of any group in this country more deserving of protection than the group who went overseas and sacrificed everything. I do not intend to say any more on that particular subject at this time, except to quote a portion of an editorial appearing in the November issue of The Legionary, which reads as follows:
It is regrettable that the government did not see fit to have a parliamentary committee set up to deal with war veterans allowance during the current fall session so that the increase, whatever it may be, could have helped to tide the recipients over the coming winter months when expenses are heaviest. The government having announced its decision,
The Address-Mr. Fair however, The Legionary can only express the fervent hope, which it feels sure all ex-servicemen and women will share, that when the amount of the increase is determined, it will be sufficient to enable these gallant old defenders of Canada's freedom to spend their remaining years in reasonable comfort, free from fear of want or outright poverty. Nothing less than that will satisfy their younger or more fortunately placed comrades- nor, we firmly believe, the citizens of this country generally.
I believe the official organ of the Legion states the opinion of 100 per cent of the members of this house, if they were only free to express their opinions.
In addition to the plight of the old veterans, there is another occupational group in Canada facing hardships and in many cases practically total ruin. I am referring now to my farmer friends in the prairie provinces. For the second year many of them have their crop out under the snow, and they are unable to pick up the pay cheque for which they have worked so hard all year because of the weather conditions that have prevailed. On September 25, 1950, after having about seven or eight days good threshing weather, there was a break in the weather and practically no harvesting was done after that date. Practically all the crop lay out under the snow during the winter. After having to wait for the heavy snowfall to melt away this spring, the farmers were compelled to harvest their 1950 crop before they could do anything about putting in the 1951 crop. After the excessive snowfall it took a considerable time for the land to dry sufficiently to enable heavy machinery to be brought in, so that it was late before planting took place. The weather did finally turn good, and as a result we had one of the best crops we have ever had in western Canada.
On September 25 of this year, the weather again turned bad, and very little harvesting has taken place since then. Some people have been able to thresh or combine some grain, but in most cases the grain is still in the field. All of the grain is either tough or damp. Under these conditions it is not possible to keep the grain over during warm weather. Many reports have been received on conditions out there, and one of the latest I have been able to get is an estimate made by the Alberta department of agriculture which deals with conditions in that province. It shows the following estimate for wheat: threshed, 43 per	cent;	in stook,	16	per	cent;swathed, 28 per	cent;	standing,	13	per	cent.In the case of oats, it showed	33	per	centthreshed, 35 per	cent	in stooks,	18	per	cent
swathed, 14 per cent standing. In the case of barley it showed 54 per cent threshed, 21 per

The Address-Mr. Fair cent in stooks, 19 per cent swathed and 6 per cent standing. This is not a very bright picture.
In addition to some farmers being unable to harvest their crops, those who were fortunate enough to get them harvested were unable to deliver one bushel. On account of the early frost and bad weather last year, a heavy percentage of the grain was low grade. Because of a lack of markets, and later on a lack of boats and box cars, much of that grain remained in the elevators in various places all over the prairie provinces. When the milling grades of this crop were available for shipment, the elevators could not handle them. This explains why many appeals have been made to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and many letters have been written to the transport controller, the wheat board and the board of transport commissioners, to have something done. In spite of these appeals we find that many areas are without box cars. Some weeks ago the wheat board found it necessary, in order to fulfil commitments it had made, to issue orders that only milling grades of wheat could be loaded. The points from which this grain was to be taken were those nearest to Fort William, and those from which the quickest turn around could be made. We understand that all of these measures were necessary but a number of farmers are placed in a difficult plight.
This letter is typical of the many I have received from farmers. It reads:
Is there any way you could fight the terrible way the grain board has of handling our grain? We cannot sell one bushel of wheat even as the elevators are plugged and so far this year only nine railroad cars have come into Mannville. The two crops previous to this were completely dried out around here and we had to spend every cent we had to buy feed from around Vermilion and Irma. Now this year the frost lowered my wheat to grades 5 and 6 which the elevators are not permitted by the grain board to take, even if they did get room. The government from Ottawa announced that there were lots of cars for moving grain. Why are they allowed to announce such falsehoods? True, there are plenty of empty cars, and all empty elevators at Viking, but why the awful situation all along our line? I have my gas, repair bills, hired man, etc., to pay before he leaves for the bush and can't do it as my wheat is on the ground in piles and granaries full with no way to sell it. Had it not been for a few cattle to sell in the past few years, we farmers could not have carried on at all.
I believe that illustrates the plight in which a large percentage of our farmers find themselves. In some cases they did not even have the cattle to sell. When one realizes the exorbitant price that is being charged for binder twine, for machinery and many of the other things that enter into the cost of production, one can understand the plight of

these people. I am fully aware of it, because I have been in exactly the same predicament for a little more than 30 years.
Recently requests have been made to have loans granted on the grain not yet harvested. If it is feasible I believe it is necessary, and I hope that something along that line will be done. I am well aware of the government policy concerning credit restrictions, and that has caused many bank managers to refuse loans to farmers who were formerly able to get the money they wanted. Government policy, of course, must be obeyed, and this is the result. When the Minister of Agriculture spoke a week ago today he gave quite a talk on agriculture, as he usually does, and tried to point out that if the farmers were to adopt different methods of farming-I believe he was referring to horses-they would not find themselves in their present condition. The Minister of Agriculture has not been on the farm very much recently, or on many farms, at any rate, because at the present time we have not sufficient help on the farms to operate in the old way by working horses and using smaller machines. With horses and smaller machines you just cannot handle the land that we are handling in the west. Because of the long working hours and poor living accommodation on many farms, many of our farm workers go to the cities where they can have more of the conveniences of life, shorter hours, better pay and pensions to take care of them in their old age. Therefore it has become necessary to buy bigger machinery, and in many cases that machinery runs twenty-four hours a day when the weather will permit. The present system of farming is entirely necessary under our present conditions. If we had had a policy for agriculture in Canada that would guarantee the farmers and their help a standard of living equal to that in other occupational lines, then we would be able to use more horses and more horse-drawn machinery.


Mr. Wylie:: Who wants to use that?


Robert Fair: The Address-Mr. Fair should like to place this on record. The prices of lower grades of grain are shown in this list. It is as follows:
Official list prices paid per bushel at country elevators under Price List No. 115. dated December 16, 1932, for points with freight rate to Fort William of 18 cents per 100 pounds.
Spring Wheat	Amber Durum
Per Bu.	Per	Bu.
cents	cents
1	Hard	
23*	1	C.W	
24*1	Northern	
23*	2	C.W	
20*2	Northern	
20*	3	C.W	
16*3	Northern	
18*	4	C.W	
15*No. 4	
17	5	C.W	
14*No. 5	
15	6	C.W	
12*No. 6	
11Feed	
7Oats	RyePer Bu.	.	Per	Bu.cents	cents2	C.W	
9*	2 C.W	
153	C.W	
6*	3 C.W	
12Ex. 1 Feed	
6*	4 C.W	
101	Feed	
5*	Ergoty	
102	Feed	
4*3	Feed	
2*Flax	BarleyPer Bu.	Per	Bu.cents	cents1 C.W	
50 3 C.W	
142	C.W	
46	4 C.W	
11*3	C.W	
32	5 C.W	
9*4	C.W	
32	6 C.W	
8*
3 x C.W. 6 Row... 17 3 x C.W. 2 Row... 17
In addition to these prices other figures could be placed on record, including eggs at three cents a dozen, butter at eight cents a pound, butterfat at a similar price, and many other commodities and prices I could mention. However, I am not concerned particularly with them today.
I place these figures on record because they are the prices which obtained under the system operated by the Winnipeg grain exchange. Many people have tried to lead the farmers astray and to get them back into the same old trap so that they may be skinned all over again.
On Saturday next, November 24, a plebiscite is being taken among farmers in Manitoba to see whether or not they will continue delivering their coarse grains to the wheat board, and having it sold by that organization. The prices announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) as having been obtained by the wheat board this year for coarse grains and wheat should be enough to open the eyes of any farmer, that is anyone who is truly a farmer. Perhaps we will hear from a gentleman in the other end of the building, who was a former minister of mines and resources, who came to Ottawa on the strength of the farmers' vote and then sold them out, and who during
	r|
recent months has been helping the farmers' protective association of Manitoba. That gentleman should be ashamed of himself, and I shall be very much surprised if he is not out there assisting in the present campaign. I hope the representative of the Winnipeg Free Press will give publicity to what I am saying today, because I have taken occasion to do the job in a similar way at other times. I hope the farmers of Manitoba will be wide awake when they go to the polls next Saturday, and vote to deliver their grain to the wheat board. In my opinion that is the last hope of the Canadian farmer.
As I said before, we should see to it that the wheat board continues to sell the farmers' grain, and forgets about putting into operation other government policy. One of the things to which I strongly object is the selling of wheat to Canadian millers at a price similar to that obtained under the international wheat agreement. That policy cost the wheat growers in the prairie provinces this year an average of 50 cents per bushel. On different occasions I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce why that situation exists, but up to the present time he has not given me an answer. The last time I asked he replied that they were paying the same prices as the others; but that is not so. We are getting nothing from the consumers of Canada in return for that, and I say it is about time something was done in that connection.
I have here a page from the Western Producer of September 13, 1951, in which appears an advertisement of Saskatchewan Pool Elevators Limited. In it they deal with marketing under the international wheat agreement, and make this statement:
The agreement represents what wheat pool members hope will be a permanent, long-term method of marketing their wheat crop, most of which is sold on the export market. Its purpose is to protect both producer and consumer nations from unfair prices, and to stabilize and expand world trade in wheat. It is meant to prevent such absurdities as the German tariff on wheat of $1.62 in 1930.
And then follows this part, of which I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take particular notice:
The agreement Is achieving its purpose, but the steady inflation of prices of the things farmers have to buy presents a situation which will have to be taken into account in future agreements. A new agreement will have to be negotiated soon, and western farmers have a responsibility to consider what changes, if any, they think should be made in methods of setting prices and price ranges in future agreements.
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others concerned will take that into consideration, and do something about it. Apparently many people in this country are

quite satisfied with a long-term contract; but in my opinion that is not sufficient unless we have a price that will take care of our cost of production.
I should like to say a few words concerning income tax assessed against farmers. Unfortunately the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is not in his seat, a fact which gives me some concern, because I have received a number of complaints about this matter. A short time ago-and I believe the practice still exists-offices in our prairie provinces, including the one in Edmonton with which I am more familiar, sent letters to farmers who, it was believed, had not yet exposed all their business activities. Those farmers were told to bring their permit books, their bank books, cancelled vouchers and receipts. After they and, in many cases, their wives reached the offices where they met the assessors or investigators, they found the books they had brought were not required, and that in many instances the .officials in charge did not even look at them. Without any notice having been given, those officials proceeded to get from the farmers an inventory of what they had held some two or three years before, and an inventory of what they are worth today. If the act does not now contain a section making provision whereby those people would be given notice when called upon to give such information concerning net worth, then some such section should be inserted.
I have in mind one instance where a farmer was asked to meet an investigator. After being told by the official that he did not want to see the farmer's permit book or bank book or receipts, he proceeded to extract from the farmer a net worth statement. Just to show the lengths to which some of these investigators would go, this particular one wanted to know what the farmer and his family spent on liquor. I have known that farmer for many years. His reply was that they had not spent anything for that purpose. He was then asked what he had spent on smokes, to which he replied. "We do not smoke." "Does your wife smoke?" And his reply: "No, my wife does not smoke." "Well," the investigator said, "some of your boys smoke, surely." "No," replied the farmer, "they do not smoke." "Then, what did you spend on haircuts?" For years this farmer and his boys have been trading haircutting, and have had no expense on that score.


An hon. Member:: Bald-headed?


Robert Fair: Then the investigator asked, "What did you spend on razor blades?" I think that is going the limit. I wish the Minister of National Revenue were in his
The Address-Mr. Fair seat so he might hear what I am saying. I hope he will read it, and see to it that justice is meted out to our farmers. Then many of these farmers-perhaps all of them, so far as I know-had to include in their incomes anywhere from $25 to $50 per member of the family per year for carrots, turnips, cabbages, potatoes, and things of that kind grown in the garden. That is a definite steal by the government. Why should the farmer, who is not engaged in truckfarming, have to do that? What other occupational group in Canada has to include such items in their receipts accounts? In many instances the farmer has a garden which is cared for by his wife; and the farmer's wife receives no pay for it. In many cases this is not worth more than $25, because you cannot sell any of the things that are produced.	|
There is another thing about which we have protested. In June, 1947, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) told us that the cost of brushing and clearing out small acreages would be allowed as a current expense. After corresponding with the Edmonton office for some time I was told that this would not be allowed, that it would be tacked on to the capital account. The farmer must pay money to have certain patches cleared out of his cultivated land, and he is not permitted to show the cost as an expense. Here again the government is deliberately stealing his money. It has no business doing that. Until other members in this house representing agricultural constituencies, and perhaps some of our legal friends from the city, take up this matter you will not have the production that Canadian farmers should be able to produce.
On another occasion I pointed out that there is something radically wrong with our taxation program and our agricultural policy in general when we have to import butter and eggs and many other things. I should like to refer again to wheat for a moment. During the 1945-49 period we received $1-833 for our top grade wheat, but for the 1950 crop we are receiving only $1.85 and a fraction. I venture to say that the cost of production, the cost of machinery, of farm help and many of the other things the farmer has to buy has increased by at least 30 to 40 per cent; yet he is compelled to take practically the same price for his grain although much of it is lying out under the snow.
I am not going to say anything more on this occasion except to pat on the back one of the courageous Liberal members in this house, who unfortunately is not in his seat at the moment. I refer to the hon. member for

The Address-Mr. Maltais Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). The hon. member has lived close to the United States border for many years. For about twenty years he made his living on the water, and for some time past has ably represented his constituency in this house. He has told us on many occasions in private conversation about the wrong that exists in connection with the increase in prices brought about by the tariff. On October 31 he cited many instances where deliberate steals-if I may use that word again-have been made from the Canadian people. I shall mention just one instance which he cited, of a refrigerator selling for $225 in the United States while the same refrigerator, made by the same manufacturer, sells for $465 in Canada. There is a glaring instance of robbery by somebody. I believe the government could look after that if they wanted to. As reported on page 601 of Hansard of October 31 the hon. member said:
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one prediction which will never come true, perhaps, because the suggestions I have made will not get very far.
The hon. member realized that he was a voice crying in the wilderness.
Nevertheless I want to make one prediction. Throw open the gates in this country for three months and the cost of living will drop by many points. We all know that. Again I want to say that this is the Liberal approach to the problem. I only hope that the men here who have listened to my remarks today will just add a little bit to what I have said and see if something cannot be done to put in their place these monopolistic organizations that we have in Canada.
I believe there are approximately 185 Liberal members in the House of Commons. The reduction of the tariff is the Liberal approach, according to the hon. member for Charlotte, and he is asking for help. Since the hon. member made his speech I have not heard one Liberal member speak in favour of it. What are they going to do about it? There is a challenge which should have been taken up many years ago, but these conditions still exist. What are we going to do about it? Is any Liberal member going to support the hon. member for Charlotte? That is a question I should like to see answered by some of the prominent backbenchers on the Liberal side. I should like to see some of them make speeches and support by their votes the good suggestions that have been made by some of their own colleagues and by many of us in the opposition.
(Translation):


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of prolonging this debate unduly and, in so far as I can confine myself to my notes, my remarks shall be rather brief. May I first of all congratu-

late the mover of the address in reply (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons). For all their tardiness, my congratulations are none the less sincere.
The hon. member for Beauharnois, who received part of his education in the county of Charlevoix, could scarcely fail to rise to the occasion and to do justice to the task entrusted to him. He has certainly not betrayed the confidence placed in him by his fellow citizens.
I have not the pleasure of close acquaintance with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River. I am sure, however, that when his constituents heard he was to second the address, they were rightfully proud of this honour.
I take this opportunity to mention that last summer the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) paid us the high honour of visiting the constituency of Charlevoix. To the honour attached to the highest office in this country, he enjoys another one, which he prefers, that of being a great Canadian.
In addition, I can hardly omit mentioning, Mr. Speaker, the humble invitation sent to you during that same season, by my compatriots, during your brief stay at Laval university, requesting that you pay them a visit. Charlevoix was indeed happy to greet you and your visit will long be remembered by the people of that old district of the province of Quebec. Remember that we only bade you "Au revoir".
Along with most hon. members, I listened with satisfaction to the speech from the throne. The measures announced, several of which have already been adopted, reflect the constant care and attention the present administration brings to the solution of current problems, domestic as well as international.
Some hon. members even went so far as to say that these measures were so excellent and popular, in spite of what our Conservative friends may think, that an election must be in the offing, as if the Liberal party were incapable of any good legislation except on the eve of an election! There must have been a great many elections in the last twenty-five years since the list of the Liberal party's achievements in that time is very long indeed.
Nevertheless a government's task knows no limits and the situation in which all nations find themselves today makes Canada's role much more difficult and costly to play.
Perhaps it was the timeliness of that complex and uncertain situation that prompted the Progressive Conservative party

to introduce the motion of want of confidence now before the house. Since it is my intention of limiting my remarks to the proposed amendment, I should like to read it again:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house adequate steps should be taken to combat inflation and deal effectively with the high cost of living.
After attempting to explain the reasons for his amendment, the leader of the opposition closed with these words, as reported at page 226 of Hansard:
(I) express the hope that the members of this house, without any extension of the motion, will vote for that motion which asks the government to act now in a spirit of co-operation.
In spite of this invitation, I will not support the motion, and that for two reasons. First, because it implies that the government have accomplished nothing, which is contrary to the facts, and secondly, because the general terms of the motion refer to nothing definite and do not suggest a definite measure to improve the situation referred to in the motion.
We all know that, in this country today, there is a certain amount of inflation that hampers different sections of our economy and remains as a constant threat. No one will deny however that this lack of balance is universal and that all the countries in the world are suffering to a more or less alarming degree. Canada at the present time may be the country that has best succeeded in avoiding its most disastrous effects. Have prices not gone up 100 per cent since about 1935 in Great Britain? In about the same period, prices in France have gone up 2,000 per cent. And what about Greece where prices have increased 25,000 per cent?
1 believe that, considering the way in which our respective indices of the increase in prices are computed, Canada compares favourably with the United States despite the fact that direct controls are applied in our neighbouring country. That, however, did not prevent Mr. Collins of the New York Times from saying that the Americans are not justified in stating that price maintenance has checked inflation.
Of course, two wrongs do not make a right. However, before trying to do away with the symptoms of an epidemic it is necessary, in order to arrive at a sure solution of the problem, to go back to the cause of the epidemic. And I am one of those who believe that, unless the serious problem of inflation is discussed at the international level, the
The Address-Mr. Maltais palliatives or the remedies that each country can take individually will only dull or allay the pain, but will not cure it.
Since this factor is quite beyond its reach, how can Canada control the price of the goods it imports?
Would anyone dare to forbid our exports to various markets where the prices are more attractive when such a policy might lead our whole economy into a state of complete stagnation?
Since Canada has to export and to import, it is utterly incapable alone to withstand successfully the inflationary pressure created elsewhere but felt in our own country.
Moreover, from what I remember of history, no country ever escaped inflation after a war. That is why every nation seeking ways to preserve peace must also seek ways to stabilize the economy of all nations for fear that our very efforts to win peace may in themselves cause our downfall.
A total defence program involving a nation's best energies is in the long run a hard undertaking to carry out and one which may very well be a burden for generations to come. Besides, the present conflict cannot be settled on the battlefield. Such is the bare truth that has been emphasized by facts that are only too recent.
Who would have thought that totalitarian Germany, once defeated, would be requested by her conquerors to join them as an ally? And who could have forecast that the powerful victors in the Pacific would be so soon confronted by danger from those very nations they have assisted, as was stated by a paper or a book the name of which I don't recall at the present time? How can you explain that, within so short a time, we are called upon to give assistance to both those countries of Europe and Asia which we so desperately fought, or that, after waging war to protect unfortunate Poland, we could have agreed to giving that country up to its worst enemy?
But 1 am getting away from my subject and I apologize. I was speaking of inflation. Although the problem is world-wide the government, who has admitted it in unequivocal terms, is duty-bound to do its best to solve it.
When the leader of the opposition calls upon the government to act now, he comes too late for, as usual, the government is ahead of him. I do not propose to read once
1150	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Maltais more through the long list of measures taken to stop this inflationary wave which has swept over the country as a result of the exhausting war we have gone through and because of the spectre of another war. As a humble supporter of the present government, before the public as well as in this house, I shall quote the opinion of a stranger lest I be charged with being, according to the favorite expression of our friends to the left, a blind supporter of government policy.
Here is what Mr. William R. Biggs, vicepresident of the Bank of New York and the Fifth Avenue Bank of New York had to say in a speech delivered in Toronto on October 12 last. I quote Mr. Biggs at a point where he concludes a list of certain measures taken by the United States government in an effort to put a stop to inflationary pressures.
(Text):
I quote Mr. Biggs now:
Before we go to the direct methods of control, it is interesting to contrast our indirect controls with those of our neighbour, Canada. Canada has enacted additional personal and corporate income taxes and various sales and excise taxes, but has so imposed this additional taxation that almost 45 per cent of the increased tax revenue has been obtained from sales and excise taxes. Furthermore. Canada has not only had a surplus in every year since the war, but expects to have a surplus in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952-and a substantial one in relation to the size of her budget. Her national debt has been reduced by over 15 per cent since 1946.
Canada not only has increased her discount rate from 11 per cent to 2 per cent, but she has been realistic in the matter of encouraging savings. Recognizing the importance of accelerated public saving, she has increased the rate paid on her savings bonds by about one-half of one per cent. In other words, Canada has acted upon the necessity of higher interest rates as part of a program to contain inflation. Again, in Canada really tough instalment selling terms have been laid down. As just one example, the down payment for a new or used automobile is 50 per cent with only twelve months to pay.
Because of the concentration of banking into a few large banks in Canada, with branches throughout the country, the Canadian credit control system, which seeks to limit bank loans to last year's levels, has been particularly effective. Canada has also adopted a very ingenious plan for discouraging unnecessary capital expenditures. No depreciation on new construction or new equipment will be allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes for a four-year period commencing April 1, 1951, except in certain categories considered essential to defence or basic to national development. This should prove to be, over the long run, an extremely effective way of reducing unnecessary capital expenditures and, hence, should relieve the strain on the supply of raw materials.
These indirect controls add up to an effective program which has some real teeth in it. They have also the great advantage over direct controls of not requiring a great build-up in bureaucracy to operate and enforce them. In connection with the


effectiveness of the Canadian program, it should be realized that inflation in Canada, as in the rest of the world, is affected most importantly by rising prices in this country.
(Translation):
These are the words of a man who cannot be considered as prejudiced. But the work of the government goes further. In September, by freeing the dollar, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) added one more weapon to the government's program towards the stabilization of our economy.
The Conservatives keep repeating:	the
government should reduce expenses. I wonder what my colleagues, who are friends of the government, think about this matter. However, as far as I am concerned, I must admit that the requests which I make of certain departments for the construction of post offices, the improvement of wharves and other projects meet with just about the same answers. I could sum them up in these words: Because of its strict economy program, the government has to put off your requested projects.
But this Conservative party, which so loudly demands a reduction in government expenses, also wants Canada to undertake a huge program for the production of transport planes for civilian and military uses, as was stated by the leader of the Conservative party, at the Seigniory club on November 1.
Is this the same party which demands that our country be turned into a veritable arsenal and that our people become a race of Spartans through the training here of large highly mechanized shock forces, all of which would add to the present defence expenditures?
Is it the same Conservative party that criticizes the travelling and representation expenses in friendly countries and yet; at the same time, requires the immediate formation of a North Pacific alliance as well as the setting up of a third world power among the commonwealth countries, plans which would *necessitate a considerable increase in expenses for travelling, representation and administration? Let us be serious about this.
When one considers that about half the expenses of the government are made up of interest charges on our national debt and expenses incurred through the maintenance of our various social services, and that the other half is made up of defence and general administrative charges, I wonder if a single

dollar saved on the latter account and credited to the defence account would add one iota of effectiveness to the means already taken to fight inflation.
I am much more inclined to believe, as Pierre Vigeant has already written in Le Devoir, that "economy and rearmament are irreconcilable." I am not sure, moreover, that Mr. James Muir, head of the Royal Bank of Canada, did not speak some words of truth when he stated at the annual meeting of the Royal Bank, held in Montreal last January 11:
(Text):
The importance of choosing the right kind of policy to combat inflation is hard to overestimate. But it is important also that we should not make our problem bigger than it need be, by a disproportionate expansion of military expenditures. The allocation of armament expenditure is a job for military experts; but the over-all size of the defence program, like war itself, is as Clemenceau once said, too important a matter to be left to the generals.
(Translation):
By way of digression, may I add that the signing of a truce in any international conflict entails consequences too serious to be the result of a defiant propaganda and false prestige. An honest compromise would be better than an inadequate measure that would only adjourn the problem instead of settling it.
But, to return to my previous remarks, the Prime Minister stated in this house: "We all share the concern caused by inflation".
Some time later, the Minister of Finance stated that the control of inflation required not only government action but also the co-operation of all classes of society, with respect to prices, profits, wages, production and the economy.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who, in the slightest degree, has any sense of observation can clearly see that the Canadian people are making tremendous sacrifices at the present time, in order to complete our collective program to safeguard our democratic and Christian way of life. Those who are fighting in Korea and those who are now serving in Europe under the command of General Eisenhower prove that we are ready to defend our liberties if need be.
Nearer to us still, who will deny all the privations endured and the worries felt by many Canadian families either because of too high taxation, or because they lack comfort or even security? In other words, Canadians are doing their share.
The Address-Mr. Maltais
But although the large majority of Canadians hold it a sacred duty to preserve and to defend what was built by Christian civilization while accepting at this time the troubles and inconveniences of the international situation, it seems that a certain section of our capitalistic system-and I mean the large corporations set up during the last century-is not always aware of the humanitarian and social role it should play in a democracy.
These capitalist institutions have operated too long with an eye to production and profit only. The time has gone when we could cling to old systems and ignore the rights of those who toil and suffer and when we could hide behind the materialistic and even selfish principles whose supreme law was: production for profit when poverty, insecurity and consideration for the human element were of secondary importance. Because our capitalist system has failed to fulfil its moral obligations, we have seen the emergence of all those doctrines such as pseudo-socialist regimes or political parties which are all of one breed and inevitably lead to communism.
Our social legislation is but a new word to meet needs as old as mankind. In this respect capitalism's inertia can hardly be excused.
The struggle the democratic countries are now undertaking against the forces of evil, besides requiring a common effort, must enable us to correct situations which must be remedied. A hope can only be replaced by a broader one.
Was it not the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett himself who more than a decade ago said,
as reported by Andre Roy of VAction Catho-lique, of Quebec city:
We must reform the economic regime. Important economic and social changes have taken place in the life of all nations and have seriously threatened this regime. To satisfy the exigencies of the new social order, capitalism must therefore change if it is to continue to serve our interests.
In view of those remarks, I am fully justified in stating that the large corporations have also a part to play in the fight against inflation which concerns each and every one of us.
If the average Canadian citizen must tighten his belt in order to overcome the crisis which now affects us, there is all the more reason for the large corporations to temporarily sacrifice that part of excess profits which puts certain goods beyond the reach of the average buyer.

The Address-Mr. Maltais
The attitude of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada seems strange to me. It constantly keeps demanding higher rates and claims to be unable to reconcile itself to a temporary loss of those profits which represent the margin which its subscribers have difficulty in meeting. It would be interesting to know how Bell's subsidiaries were treated when the last rise of 5 per cent was granted and if any account was taken of the principle of solidarity which must apply in a common effort to fight inflation.
This economic scourge constitutes a problem of national scope which the government have already tackled by various means at their disposal. However, it also requires, on the international front, the co-operation of every country and, on the domestic front, the co-operation of every group.
In conclusion I will repeat, after the head of the Conservative party, these words of William Green:
Let us sink our tiny differences and stand together for the free enterprise system, which allows labour to organize and for the rights of employers. Let us dwell on the bonds that hold us together rather than the barriers which divide us.
Before resuming my seat, I would like to deal with another subject and refer to the speech delivered in this house by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche). I am sorry he is not in his seat. He will, of course, permit me to complete a quotation he made on that occasion. He was quoting the words of the Hon. Antoine Rivard, spoken on January 20, 1942, at a meeting of the St. Laurent branch of the Kiwanis in Montreal. This quotation I wish to complete by adding to it what the hon. member did not say but what Mr. Rivard did say:
Our forebears had to choose between wealth, giving up their language and their faith and, on the other hand, poverty, ignorance and arduous labour. They chose to resist attempts at assimilation. Our destiny has not changed . . . Education? Not too muchl Our ancestors left us a heritage of poverty and ignorance and it would be a betrayal to educate our compatriots . . .
Mr. Speaker, in so far as my children are concerned, I would be betraying them if I left them a heritage of ignorance and poverty, and I refuse to accept for my people a verdict rendered by an ignoramus.
(Text):


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I am going to speak on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). It is found on page 807 of Hansard, and reads as follows:


Furthermore, we regret that Your Excellency's
advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance.
I am going to try to stick to that amendment. It does not say, as many of the speeches have indicated, that the government should amend the War Veterans Allowance Act at this session. I believe this is a very tame amendment, and one with which every member of the house could agree. The amendment merely says that the hon. member regrets, and I think every member of the house regrets, that along with the increase in the basic pension something was not done by way of amending the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I was going to keep my speech relevant to the amendment. I am going to deal exclusively with the War Veterans Allowance Act. In saying what I am about to say at this time, I do not want it to be considered as criticism or anything of that kind. The act needs amending. I am going to suggest some amendments which I believe should be made. The hon. member for Acadia regretted that something was not done to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living. In addition to that particular adjustment, there are other adjustments which are necessary. My reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the government at this time is that the government may decide at this session to amend the act. They may decide not to do so, but may follow through with the announcement that a parliamentary committee will meet early in the 1952 session to study the whole social security set-up and relate the War Veterans Allowance Act to it. Whether it is done now or early in the new session, I believe some of my suggestions will be of interest to the committee and will supply food for thought by those who may draft the new act which I hope will be brought in as soon as the government deems it advisable.
What I have in mind are matters which most of the top level civil servants who do the drafting of the War Veterans Allowance Act or any other act seldom come in contact with. They are matters that the veteran welfare officers in the communities across the country who have handled the War Veterans Allowance Act run into every day, and which give them some trouble. My main purpose in speaking now is to bring

these matters to the attention of the committee, and to record them for the benefit of those who may be considering proposed amendments to the act. In this and other debates I have heard a lot about who should get the credit for this and who should get the credit for that. My philosophy has been that you can get anything you want, so long as you do not care who gets the credit for it. In regard to the increase in the basic pension announced the other day, 1 want to compliment the minister. It was perhaps more generous than some hon. members of the house expected. It certainly was needed, and it met fully the demands of the Legion. I do not think anyone in particular can claim credit for that. The minister was fortunate in being the person to announce it.
The same thing applies to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I have heard people say that this party or that was responsible for it. I can remember the time when there were none of these acts. I can remember the formation of the old Great War Veterans' Association, and then its absorption by the great British Empire Service League, and the setting up of the branches of the basic organization. I can remember the names of many individuals who participated in building that organization and developing the mechanics of both the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. Looking back over the years many people stand out in my mind, but I know they are not looking for any credit. There were hundreds of people who built the machinery the Legion uses today. There were many surveys, and many people lost a lot of time and sleep laying the basis for this War Veterans Allowance Act. I have met some of those people in this house who have grown old now; some of them are in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Back in the early thirties I sat in to help draft the original of this War Veterans Allowance Act, and it arose out of a survey of unemployment in the provinces and the way it affected the ex-servicemen. It is because many of these individuals were not looking for credit that we have the legislation, and that the Legion is a strong organization today. I hope it always remains sane. It has played a good role so far, but I believe it is fortunate that in this house there is a large representation of veterans who, regardless of party, have policed that legislation. They will, see that nothing happens to interfere with it.
In my opinion no particular party should get any credit. The need is there, and it is a right that this country owes to the ex-servicemen. Thousands of veterans have participated in building the organization, and many members of this house have contributed
The Address-Mr. Gillis a lot of time in order to bring about what we have. I am glad that at this session the government at last recognized that the veterans were entitled to the increase of 33J per cent in basic pension. I do not want anyone to think for a moment that what I am saying about the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act is by way of recrimination or carping criticism, because when we decide we have reached finality in any legislation and stop bringing these matters to the attention of the government, there will be no further need of us. When we decide we have reached finality in any legislation and there is no need of us any more, we can set up one man and give him a book and say: "You go ahead and administer it." But our job, as I see it, is to pick out defects and make reasonable recommendations as to how they might be remedied.
The War Veterans Allowance Act is designed to take care of a certain type of veteran. I hold in my hand an advertisement which appeared in one of the papers that circulate in my riding, namely the Sydney Post-Record. It is a block advertisement of recent date and in big letters it reads:
Wanted for needy war veteran one kitchen stove and bed clothing. Phone number 8138, Canadian Legion Branch No. 128 and goods will be picked up.
It was largely the unemployability of certain types of veterans that gave rise to the act in the first place. I say no act is perfect, or the problem has not been solved so long as that type of advertisement appears in a local paper in any part of this country. Here is one veteran who is badly in need of some assistance, otherwise the veterans organization in that community would not be advertising for help and assistance for him. A person who is obliged to accept that type of help is in the unfortunate category of ex-service personnel. If you examine the record I think you will find that particular group are veterans who slugged out the whole war in a combat unit and were unfortunate enough not to get a wound. They went all through the war and suffered terrific physical handicaps. They came back without any physical wounds and became employed in heavy industry, or in some other type of work. As a result of the gradual wearing down of their nervous systems and their bodies generally they crack up four or five or ten years after the war is over. They appear before a doctor, but they have no disability as such that entitles them to a pension, so they receive war veterans allowance. If they are single men the amount they can get is very small. They have to eke out an existence.

The Address-Mr. Gillis
In my opinion that is the type of veteran who deserves the utmost consideration in any legislation. There are hundreds and thousands of veterans who perhaps had a day, a week, or a month in the line, or in the service, and were lucky enough to get wounded, get out and get the benefit of the disability pension. There are many recipients of war veterans allowance who have suffered to a greater degree than the man who has lost a limb, because their bodies are wrecked. We should see that legislation is enacted that prohibits the need for a branch of the Legion to insert an advertisement such as the one 1 have mentioned in any newspaper in any part of this country. In my opinion the legislation should be so flexible that it would give administrative latitude to the welfare officers in any community to provide for that type of case brought to his attention by the Legion and certified as a legitimate case. That kind of advertisement should not appear. I do not believe the administration of veterans affairs in any part of Canada wants that kind of thing to appear in any newspaper. Something is wrong when it does appear.
Another disability the war veterans allowance recipient suffers is this. He establishes a pension of $40.41, or the maximum provided for a married veteran. That may be made up, as it is in many cases of a $25 disability pension, or a $15 disability pension, augmented by the veterans allowance. There is a 25 per cent increase in the disability pension, but, because of the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act the allowance of the recipient of war veterans allowance is reduced by the 25 per cent that was added to the basic pension. Twenty-five per cent on the small pension he receives is not very much. When it is taken out of the war veterans allowance it does not make him very happy, because he lost 25 per cent in 1948. Under this arrangement the war veterans allowance recipient who is on a partial disability pension and a partial war veterans allowance loses that 334 per cent. That does not make him very happy, and it is because of the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act. In that particular instance serious consideration should be given to removing the means test from the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Another point that I should like the parliamentary assistant-who is here now paying attention as he always does, and who understands these matters very clearly-to put in his little book or to place on the record is this angle. In many industries across this country they have what they call a welfare scheme. They pay into a special fund as an

insurance against sickness. This is in addition to unemployment insurance, which does not cover a man who is unemployed because of sickness. Therefore many of these industries have what they call a welfare fund. The particular case I am referring to is the coal workers relief association. The steelworkers also have it. If they are unemployed through sickness they can receive for a limited time perhaps $8, $9 or $10 a week as a sick benefit. Mind you, that is an insurance they have paid for, and they are entitled to it if they are off sick. The older veteran breaks down and is entitled to war veterans allowance because he can no longer be employed in that industry. He is also entitled to his $8 or $9 a week welfare insurance that he has been paying into for fifteen or twenty years. But when war veterans allowance is granted, it is granted minus the amount that he will receive from the insurance that he paid for over the years. When that is generally understood, what happens? The average industrial worker who is paying into this welfare scheme says to himself: "Why should I pay that insurance? I receive no benefit from it. I pay 40 cents, 50 cents or 60 cents a week as insurance against sickness, and when I am in need of it I find that I have insured the government. It is deducted from the war veterans allowance that I would have received had I not paid into that welfare scheme." When we are considering amendments to the act, some attention should be given to that matter. That is the means test again that prevents the recipient of war veterans allowance, under the circumstances I have described, from receiving benefits of the insurance that he has paid for.
Another point I think requires amendment is that having to do with imperial veterans' widows. In my opinion a very rank piece of discrimination is contained in the act in that regard. The act was amended, and rightly so, to include the widows of imperial veterans who had residence in Canada for twenty years. In many cases the widow still resides in Canada, and has been here for the required number of years. The veteran, however, may have passed away after he had been here fifteen years, or nineteen years, or perhaps nineteen years and a few months, thus leaving his widow ineligible to receive the war veterans allowance. I do not think there would be much money involved in making the change I suggest. Pathetic cases have been brought to my attention, where there has been no income. The widow of the Canadian serviceman who may live next door is eligible, and draws the allowance; but because the good Lord decided that this other husband should leave this earth before the

twenty-year period, his widow is not eligible. In my view that section of the act, as it affects widows of service personnel who could qualify otherwise, should be amended.
It is a small point. I should imagine a comparatively small amount of money is involved. It is, however, a source of irritation. The government should keep in mind that every satisfied customer is a good organizer for it. One or two cases such as I have described can poison the minds of many people in a community. All the good things are forgotten; the hundred and one benefits do not come to mind; what stands out like a sore thumb is the fact that Mrs. Jones, whose husband died a month before she would have been eligible under the act, has become an object of charity in the community, when, because of hair-splitting, it was ruled that she was not entitled. I do not think it is even good politics for the government to permit that sort of thing to be chucked around in the next election campaign. The parliamentary assistant, with whatever influence and persuasion he may have-and he has considerable-should seek to remedy this with treasury board. An amendment should be made, because if we should happen to have a contest in the near future such complaints would be unanswerable.
Another point the parliamentary assistant should stress very strongly is that of permissible earnings. At the present time the pension and permissible earnings allowed a recipient of war veterans allowance are below the amount fixed for those who come under the old age security provisions affecting those from 65 to 69 years. The maximum now permitted a single veteran is $610 a year, while that for a married veteran is $1,100. Under the old age assistance measure, affecting those from 65 to 69, the permissible earnings and pension are set at $720 and $1,200. The least the government should do is to bring the war veterans allowance in line with the pension. I would hope, myself, that it might go much further.
If I had time I could place many examples on record, but I am not going to do it just now. I hold in my hand a document setting out certain facts in a particular case. This veteran was receiving the maximum war veterans allowance as a married man. Then it was pointed out there was something in the act about casual earnings. He had a job at the hospital for which he received $285 a year. The hospital was quite satisfied, because it was the type of work for which they had difficulty finding applicants, for the simple reason that the income from that work was not sufficient. The man in question was able to give satisfactory service in 94699-731
The Address-Mr. Gillis a small community for this amount, and for a couple of years proceeded to do so. However, someone reported him, with the suggestion that what he was earning was not casual but rather in the nature of permanent earnings. It was alleged that he was permanently employed, because he could depend on receiving the $285 each year. His war veterans allowance was reduced accordingly, and a claim was made against him with the result that he had to reimburse the department for what he had been paid in the two years, and in this way was caused considerable trouble. The case went before the district authority and then before the appeal board at Ottawa, both of which had no alternative but to say, "That is the way the act works."
Surely this is unfair. The description of casual earnings as set out in the act should be clarified. I do not blame the investigator or those who administer the act, because casual earnings can be construed in many ways. But if a man who performs an essential service in a humanitarian institution for which he receives this very small amount of money cannot be said to have received casual earnings for that kind of work, then I do not know what it could be. Surely the expression "casual earnings" must be more clearly defined.
I am not suggesting that those who administer war veterans allowances should stick to the $720 and $1,200. We know that many war veterans who have been declared unemployable, and who have become the recipients of war veterans allowances, are employed in heavy industry. A man may leave a steel plant, a coal mine, a textile plant or an automobile industry where the work is heavy and where he must be on his feet much of the time. Such a man, who may be receiving a war veterans allowance, after a little rest may find that he is able to do a good deal of useful work, and might be able to earn enough through casual employment as a doorman, as an elevator operator or in some other way to place himself in a position where he would have a fairly decent standard of living.
If on this basis of casual earnings a man is to be pinned down, he tvill find that he must refrain from doing anything if he is to retain his allowance. He will not take a chance on earning anything at all for fear of upsetting his right to war veterans allowance. I say that in this connection more administrative latitude should be allowed. Those who administer the act from the local offices, who see the people, who understand the conditions and are familiar with them, should be given sufficient latitude to make recommendations to the board at Ottawa or to the district

The Address-Mr. Gillis authority. If a man is doing a fairly good job by way of rehabilitating himself, after leaving a heavy industry, he should not be forced to retire at, let us say, 60 years of age, when there are many kinds of light work he might be able to do. Indeed he should be encouraged to do that work.
This matter of permitting casual earnings when a man is not capable of continuing his regular occupation should be given serious consideration. When they retire, as well as receiving their war veterans allowance- which alone certainly would not provide a high standard of living-they should be encouraged to contribute service to the community, and to earn what they can on the side. The government is not saving money by relegating men of this kind to the kitchen, by telling them they cannot augment their incomes. On the contrary, it is depriving communities of useful service by those men. The amount will always be too small. If you pay $50 per month it will be too small, and $60 a month will not feed, clothe and shelter a person today. But if a man is paid at least $50 per month, then there should be greater latitude in connection with casual and permissible earnings. The recipient of veterans allowance should have a chance ito do something for himself as far as the standard of living is concerned.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I wonder if my hon. friend is not confusing casual and permissive earnings. He will remember that $125 is permitted for a single man and $250 for a married man as regular earnings, whereas casual earnings have no dollar limit provided they come within the description of not being regular. Is the hon. member advocating an increase in the permissive regular earnings? You cannot very well expand the casual earnings because there is no limit on them.


Clarence Gillis: I was suggesting a clarification of casual earnings and permissive earnings. In the case I cited, this man had earned $285 a year and it was ruled that that was regular and therefore not permitted. He was not allowed anything; he was cut off completely. So he stopped working and the government gave him back the $10 per month they had taken from him. The hospital lost his services. Everybody was hurt and the government did not save any money. A look should be taken at that particular angle.
I do not think there should be a limit. If a man is certified as being unemployable in the industry in which he has made his living and is granted a war veterans allowance of $40, $50 or $60 per month, that is granted as of right because he is prematurely aged and cannot earn his living in the industry in which he had earned it

previously. That is given him as compensation. I do not think there should be any ceiling on other earnings. If that man can find employment, such as the man in the hospital to whom I have referred, as a doorman, an elevator man and so on and can earn $50 or $60 a month, he would still be below the normal rate of wages and salaries prevailing today. Such a man should be permitted to give to the country what service he can in order to supplement his statutory right just as long as he does not go back to his regular occupation and income.
I suggest that there should be no ceiling on earnings, so that those who are obliged to accept war veterans allowances may be encouraged to do something up to the time they are unable to do anything at all because of age or wear and tear. I leave this with the parliamentary assistant. I know that both he and the minister understand these matters.
I am putting forward these facts so that when they meet the treasury board they will be able to argue with these people at the top level in this city who do not often come in contact with this kind of thing.
There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister concerning the recipient of war veterans allowance who may be in one of the departmental institutions under the veterans' care arrangement. Many of these older veterans have no homes and when they get along in years and become a bit shaky they are not able to look after themselves properly. Then the department decides to place them in one of the departmental institutions. When the veteran goes into such an institution he gets his board and room, but they take away his veterans allowance. He is allowed $8 per month for clothing and comforts. Eight dollars per month will not buy much in the way of clothing or very many comforts. If you roll your own cigarettes you may be able to keep on smoking, but you do not take in many shows or go for many taxi rides on $8 per month. And you certainly do not buy much in the way of clothing. I suggest that a look should be taken at this.
Many of these aged veterans who are placed in these institutions will not be around much longer. I have in my hand a letter written to me on August 31 by a naval veteran of both wars who was in an institution in Halifax under the veterans' care arrangement. He passed on about a month after writing this letter. He was much concerned about this particular point, and he was a most reasonable fellow.
Apart from this $8 per month not being enough to provide comforts and clothing, there is still another angle. If you attempt to let that $8 per month accumulate, perhaps

to try to get enough to buy a suit of clothes at today's prices it will not be given to you. This man said that he thought he would let this money accumulate against the time when he might be going out. It must be remembered that these men go into and come out of these institutions from time to time; they may go in for the winter and come out for a few months in the summer. When he tried to collect the $8 per month for the time he had been in he could not get it, and was unable to get his suit of clothes. Perhaps I had better read one paragraph from his letter, where he states:
With further reference to veterans allowance it happened that during the summer months while I was receiving $40.41 veterans allowance I was forced to enter the city hospital, Sydney, N.S. for the period of ten days from July 14 to July 24, 1951. As it happened I received war veterans allowance in full during that period but since the department has determined that I was not entitled to allowance and have been making deductions from my allowance monthly and apparently will continue until they have made up every cent that they paid me for this period.
From reading that I assume that during the short time he was in hospital he received the full amount of war veterans allowance, but when the department found that out they concluded that he was not entitled to the allowance for the period he was confined to the hospital. That is even more far-fetched than I thought it was at first. If he was at home his expenses would not be as great as they were while he was in the city hospital. While in the hospital he would have to pay the doctor, the ward rate and, if very ill, the nurse. I think the department should take a look at that particular angle.
Most of these men are quite old; if they leave the institution during the summer months they may be many miles away from any departmental hospital. They may have a sudden seizure of some kind and have to be rushed to hospital. Instead of cutting oft the allowance while they are under additional expenses, some arrangement should be made so that at least the allowance would be paid during the time they were in an institution under emergency circumstances.
As I said when I began, Mr. Speaker, I am not raising these questions purely as matters of criticism because no small group of men who sit down to draft or amend an act can know everything about it or be conversant with all the possibilities that may exist. They may be small points, but they are points of irritation. I merely rose at this time to do what I have been doing for a long time, point out the defects in the legislation as I see them so that those who may rewrite the act or prepare amendments to it may be able to
The Address-Mr. Fleming introduce something to rectify the sections that I say are wrong and require clarification.
I am not complaining about a lot of things that perhaps I could complain about. I felt I should stick to the War Veterans Allowance Act at this time and be as relevant as possible to the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia. While some members say it is a want of confidence motion, I cannot see it as a vote of want of confidence. The hon. member merely says he regrets that the War Veterans Allowance Act was not taken care of at the same time the question of the basic pension was looked after. Together with him I also regret that, and I also realize that if a proper job is going to be done in revising the act it will take a little time. I suggest that the parliamentary assistant look at Hansard and examine the sections that I think require consideration and clarification. I know there is no use our trying to push the government to do it, because they are too heavy. They are on the other team, and it is the winning team so far; but when they are ready to do so I suggest that consideration should be given to the points I have mentioned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the house is engaged in debate on the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) in the following words:
Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance.
I intend to support that amendment with all my heart. Last Friday the house welcomed the announcement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) indicating it is the intention of the government at the present session to introduce legislation to amend the Pension Act with a view to increasing the basic rates of pension provided by that act. I am sure that measure will be welcomed in all parts of the house and the country; but the fact that the government has seen fit to introduce such a measure at the present session serves to underline and emphasize the fact that there is no shred of excuse left now for further delay in dealing with the problem presented by the cost of living in relation to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The need having been recognized by the government of dealing immediately with the Pension Act to remedy its inadequacies, then certainly no longer can any excuse be offered by the government for delay and postponement in dealing with the equal needs of those who are entitled under the War Veterans

The Address-Mr. Fleming Allowance Act at the present time. On that subject I simply say that in the light of the question I put this afternoon to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to which I am sorry to say I received a very unsatisfactory answer,
I hope when the Pension Act amendment is before the house an opportunity will be given not simply to bring needed assistance to those who are within the scope of the statement outlined by the minister last Friday when he referred to the pensioned widows and others, but also to relieve the lot of the dependent parents of veterans who have paid the supreme sacrifice in the service of their country. All of us in this house want to do justice to the veterans' widows. Why should we then put limits upon that justice and deny, as the minister apparently indicated this afternoon the government proposes to deny, any further consideration to the dependent mother of a veteran who has given his life? There is simply no justice on the part of the government in turning a deaf ear to the plight and need of the dependent mother or father of a veteran who has given his life in the service of his country.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If the hon. member will permit, the minister in response to the question put to him made no statement of policy whatsoever. He stated what is the effect of the present legislation and with respect to that which is to come he said: Wait and see the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 1 do not understand the point of my hon. friend's interruption.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I will explain it if the hon. member will permit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister stated what the situation is, and when invited to indicate if there was any intention on the part of the government, or any provision in the bill, to meet the need of the war mother he did not have anything to offer. Notwithstanding the fact that he did not embrace the opportunity offered this afternoon to make an announcement to that effect, if he is going to have something in the bill to deal with this matter I think the house will welcome it. For my part I am glad to take advantage of this opportunity to urge that when the bill is brought down it should take account of and seek to meet the need of that very worthy group whom we commonly call war mothers.
I propose to devote the balance of my remarks to the subject of housing. May I therefore ask you to call it 6.15, Mr. Speaker.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I feel constrained to speak this evening on the subject of housing because apparently this will be the last opportunity afforded at the present session for the discussion of that subject. The house will recall that on October 16 the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) made a statement with respect to housing, which has had little if any discussion in the house since.
I am sure that members of the house heard with amazement the statement made on October 18 by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, when he said as reported at page 158 of Hansard:
-it would seem that the only real domestic problem we have is the high cost of living.
The high cost of living is a tremendous domestic problem; but for any hon. member to say it is Canada's only domestic problem simply establishes how far he is removed from reality, because in housing conditions in Canada today we have a domestic problem of gigantic proportions. Against the statement of the parliamentary assistant, who I presume was speaking the mind of the government, let me put to you, sir, a statement that comes from a body of public servants who are much closer to the people than is this government or the parliamentary assistant to whom I have referred. I refer to the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. At their annual meeting in Montreal on February 15 of this year they said the housing shortage is Canada's No. 1 problem. That statement was made ten months ago, when housing conditions were not as difficult as they are today and when the failures of government policy were less manifest than they are today. I therefore choose to take the evidence of the mayors of Canadian cities on that subject in preference to that of the parliamentary assistant speaking for the government. These mayors are close to the problem. They see it literally on their doorsteps. One city in which the mayor can see this problem in reality is the city of Vancouver, from which the parliamentary assistant hails.
This, sir, is a problem of critical proportions; and I say to you that it owes its critical proportions largely to the government's folly and failure. This is a national problem; and at their annual meeting last February it was recognized by the federation of mayors as a national problem to be found in every municipality in Canada.

Let me review briefly the unhappy story of the way this government has befuddled any federal efforts to cope with this problem. Do I need to take you back, sir, to the general election campaign in the spring of 1949, when the government was just full of promises of the way they were going to grapple with this housing problem? If they were returned to office they were going to do so many things that they had failed to do in the post-war years when they hadi power; if the people would give them one more chance they would grapple with this housing problem and defeat it. Unhappily 1he people took this government at their word. Then came the fall of 1949 and we had a great display in this house of a government proceeding, with loud trumpetings, to put its election promises into the form of statutory enactments. We had the Minister of Resources and Development introducing amendments to the National Housing Act, of which two were the most conspicuous. The first had to do with provision for an additional one-sixth on the mortgages provided under the National Housing Act. The second was to introduce a new section 35 to provide for what was in effect, although the government still does not call it that, subsidized housing.
What was the background of those two measures which had general support in the house? The house welcomed those amendments; the house supported them unanimously; and the house called upon the government to put them to work.
Sir, the background of that one-sixth additional loan was legislation of the province of Ontario; because in 1948 the government of which my leader, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), was then head introduced in the legislature of Ontario what proved to be extremely beneficial legislation. The province stepped into a gap left by federal legislation; because the great weakness of the National Housing Act in this respect, as became so clearly demonstrated under conditions then obtaining, was that there was too big a gap between the prevailing prices of houses-taking account of the high cost of construction-on the one hand, and the amount of mortgage available under the National Housing Act, on the other hand. This gap had been widening by reason of the increase in the cost of construction. It became an increasingly difficult problem because more and more of the people who could afford to make a high down payment had already been in the housing market, and the people who were then wanting to enter the market were those who had less money to put into houses by way of down payment.
The Address-Mr. Fleming The province therefore, meeting a gap existing under federal legislation, under the eyes of the federal government, stepped in and introduced this beneficial legislation under which the province made available second mortgage loans to the extent of one-half of that gap between the cost of construction and the mortgage available under the National Housing Act, with a limit of $1,250 on any loan.
The extent to which that legislation assisted in the construction of houses in the province of Ontario is best attested by the fact that before it went out of effect at the end of 1949 it had provided ten thousand loans and a total of $13 million by way of second mortgage at an interest rate of 3i per cent which, as you will see, sir, was substantially below that at which the federal government proposed to make such money available. The federal government on this occasion in November, 1949, was following a good example. We did not criticize them for doing so; on the contrary, we commended them. So the federal government in the fall of 1949 made its belated move to close this gap which had existed under federal legislation. Amendments to the National Housing Act were enacted to increase the mortgage loan available by one-sixth, at an interest rate of 4J per cent. That legislation came into effect at the end of 1949, and the province of Ontario accordingly was obliged to remove itself from that picture.
The second feature, sir, of the amendments of 1949 was, as I have said, the enactment of section 35 under which provision was made for federal contribution to ttu7 deficits that might be incurred in the construction of houses intended to be rented where the provincial governments would contribute, either themselves or with the municipalities, the additionaj. 25 per cent, provided the projects weie approved by the federal government, in that legislation the federal government laid down the firm provision as to the cases in which federal money would be available under section 35: every project had to be approved by the federal government.
Running through all the lending provisions of the National Housing Act and the outstanding provision made for the additional one-sixth loan was this feature which proved to be the joker in the manner the government applied the legislation. It all applied on the lending value; and it remained for the government, with the aid of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to determine what would be the lending value. Some of us speaking in the debate on the amendments

The Address-Mr. Fleming in November, 1949, pointed out that the efficacy of the amendment then introduced into section 4, as well as the efficacy indeed of all the lending provisions of the National Housing Act, would depend upon the interpretation which the government put upon those words "lending value."
We shall see what the government did to implement the intent of parliament. In February of this year the government proceeded to deal three hammer blows at the hopes of this country for the construction of even sufficient houses to keep up with current demand, let alone to make any reduction in this formidable backlog of housing needs. In the first place they laid it down that the lending value for all purposes under the National Housing Act should be determined by the level of construction costs at January 1, 1950, a time when construction costs were substantially below the figure to which they had risen in February, 1951. Next they discontinued completely the one-sixth additional loan. Parliament had enacted that amendment to the National Housing Act. It was parliament's determination that that one-sixth additional loan should be available. But this government, without any consultation whatever with parliament, without so much as saying by your leave, simply announced that there would be no more granting of the one-sixth additional loan.
The gap between the loan available under the National Housing Act and the cost of construction immediately widened so that it eliminated thousands and thousands of Canadians from the market. In doing what it did on that occasion this government tore up the legislation of parliament. It nullified parliamentary legislation. At the same time this government tore up, yes, tore to shreds its own election promises. Later in the spring the third step followed, which of course was not as significant as the other two, but nevertheless had some effect. The government increased the rate of interest charged on loans under the National Housing Act.
When those two hammer blows were dealt at house-building efforts in Canada in February, a storm of protest rose throughout the country. A statement was made by the premier of Ontario in the legislature of that province which, I might tell the house, was endorsed at least by the applause of all parties. None of them had a word to say in opposition to the comment then made on this subject. Speaking of the discontinuance of the one-sixth additional loan, the premier said:
I want to express entire disagreement with this move ... I agree that something must be done, but of all things to be cut back, housing should be the last.

Never were truer words spoken. In the face of a protest like that, and a veritable storm of public protest, this government did not flinch but stubbornly refused to reinstate the one-sixth additional loan. The inevitable result followed. How could it have been otherwise? We saw immediately a decline in housing starts in Canada, and it has accelerated as -the months have passed. The daily bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics for November 2 summarized the situation to the end of September of this year as follows:
Construction of new dwellings units was again at a lower level in September than a year earlier. Starts fell 46 per cent-the fifth decrease in as many months-while completions were off by 11 per cent to record the third successive monthly decrease. The September drop in starts followed declines of 20 per cent in August, 40 per cent in July, 21 per cent in June, and 14 per cent in May. Completions, following a general rise in the first 6 months, fell 18 per cent in August and 28 per cent in July.
So the story proceeds. Let us recall that only in these past several months has the country felt the full effects of the reversal of housing policy announced by this government in February. When next year comes the country will be reaping the full and sour fruit of this policy, because housing completions will be showing the full effect of the decline in housing starts this year from the time this government's policy showed its full and baneful effect.
We need not cover all the cities in Canada, but I turn to Vancouver because I go back to that remark of the parliamentary assistant who represents one of the Vancouver constituencies. I hold in my hand the October bulletin of the Vancouver housing association, and I read this paragraph:
City of Vancouver:	For the nine months ended
September 30, dwelling permits (units) issued in the city of Vancouver were down from 2,261 in 1950 to 1,250 in 1951; a drop of 45 per cent. These figures reveal the drastic effect of the credit restrictions on residential building introduced last spring.
Will you bear in mind, sir, that the housing starts in the early months of this year compared favourably with the early months of 1950, but by the end of September the comparison of the early months had been obliterated, and the net result was an overall drop totalling about 45 per cent. Yes, those are the fruits, the inevitable fruits, of the policies of this government. Those are the results of its blindness. We were told that these policies were to have an antiinflationary effect. I say to you that they have had an anti-house-building effect.
Then we were told that the government could not afford to go on with some of the housing projects that had been started. For instance, theie was the Fraserview project

in Vancouver, that was to provide 1,100 homes for veterans and their families on a site specially set aside for the purpose. The federal government stepped in and said that because of the costs and because of the inflationary effect of constructing these houses, only those upon which starts had been made could be completed. They permitted 600 houses to be completed, but 500 were stopped. Can you credit that in this year 1951, under a shabby excuse like that, treatment of this reprehensible type would be meted out by a Canadian government to Canadian veterans?
What I have to say about the prime minister's residence, what I have said on repeated occasions in this house, has always been prefaced by the remark that all parties in this house supported the idea of providing a residence for the prime minister.


An hon. Member:: Originally.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; we have always supported the idea. But, sir, there was no one so far as I know on the opposition side who believed that the government should have carte blanche to go ahead without calling for any tenders, without getting any estimates of the cost of construction, and pour $600,000 into the construction of one house. They found the money for that purpose, while at the same time they stopped the construction in Vancouver, among other places, of 500 houses because they said they did not have the money, and the construction of those houses would be inflationary. Where is the consistency?


Mr. Hellyer:: That is not what they said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what they said. The Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) said in this house that these constructions were being stopped and these measures calling for withdrawal of the one-sixth mortgage loan were being adopted, because their effect would be inflationary, and the government was going to stop inflation by discontinuing them. Therefore I say to you:	where is the consistency?
Apparently it is not inflationary to go ahead with what was a good idea, namely providing a residence for the prime minister, but to make a hopeless botch of the way that project was handled by the government.


Mr. Laing:: Which project?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The prime minister's residence; $600,000 for one house without any estimates of cost.


Mr. Whiiman:: Cheap.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without any estimates of the cost of construction being brought before the house. They do not like it over there, and t can well understand that they are very
The Address-Mr. Fleming touchy about it, because if there ever was an idea that was good in principle at the start that was wrecked by this government by the way they handled it, by the way they poured taxpayers' money down the drain, it was that project of providing a residence for the prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Cheap.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They call $600,000 cheap.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They wanted a residence
worthy of you, Donald, if you ever make the grade.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope I am never lacking in a sense of humour on any question that is properly a subject for humorous discussion in the house; but if we can dismiss from our minds the discontinuance of construction of houses for veterans at Fraserview and elsewhere in Canada, then it might be a matter for humorous comment by my hon. friend opposite. But when it becomes policy on the part of the government to stop the construction of veterans' houses because they say it is inflationary then I say to you, sir, it is not a matter for humour; it is a very tragic matter. It is a tragedy to a good many veterans and their families in Vancouver, and I propose to take that subject seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Pretty small.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is this situation that the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Sinclair) to the Minister of Finance, speaking for the government, could apparently gloss over? He did not even find it a problem. He said there was only one problem in Canada that anybody has any complaint about, and that is inflation. Of course that is a big problem, but it is not the only problem. May I just give you some indication of how serious this problem is. I think this again will be a challenge to some members of the government, to the parliamentary assistant and others out of touch with public opinion, and out of touch with the hard facts of life in many localities in Canada for too long.
Sir, not long ago a situation arose in the city of Hamilton. It was reported in the press of October 4. I read from the account in the Globe and Mail of parents putting their children up for adoption because they did not have accommodation. The account reads:
A story of parents putting their children up for adoption because they did not have housing accommodation to accept the newborn child into their overcrowded living space, was reported here today.
Miss E. Duffy of the Children's Aid Society described this condition to the special housing committee meeting this afternoon, when various welfare agencies disclosed their findings on housing conditions in this city.	.


Arthur Laing: That in Hamilton.
1162

The Address-Mr. Fleming


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish the people of Canada would understand that when conditions in the city of Hamilton, such as I have just described, are referred to in the House of Commons the government members opposite have chosen to laugh at them. I hope that fact will be heard in Hamilton.


Some hon. Members:: Laughing at you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The account proceeds. Let hon. gentlemen opposite continue to derive humour and merriment over the plight of these unfortunate people in Hamilton. I continue:
Welfare officials described incidents of broken homes, unhealthy living conditions, children bitten by rats, parents boarding their children out, and effects on school children.
"The story on housing in this city is so heartbreaking I could not begin to describe it," said Mayor Lloyd Jackson.
At one point, the mayor was so moved he broke down and could not continue. Tears streamed down his cheeks and he had to reach for a glass of water before he could resume his faltering remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Again the description of an unhappy situation in Hamilton has evoked derisive laughter from government benches. I proceed. This is a statement made in Toronto on October 6 by a gentleman who is well known for his welfare work, Mr. F. N. Stapleford, general secretary of the neighbourhood workers' association. A press account of his statement is as follows:
"Neither Toronto nor Canada is solving its housing problem. The many houses which are going up are simply taking care of the expansion in current housing needs. There is a big backlog which is not being touched," he added. "We have as many people in Canada in urgent need of housing now as we had five years ago. In Toronto there are conditions prevailing which are nothing short of disgraceful!"
Further down, after giving a description of conditions in Toronto similar to that I just gave of conditions in Hamilton, which provoked so much merriment on the part of government supporters, he says:
"Housing is Toronto's No. 1 social problem," Mr. Stapleford said. "If a city-wide survey was made, the number of families in one or two rooms-and often paying exorbitant rent-would be very large."
Let us next hear from an expert of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Let hon. gentlemen opposite laugh at this. These are statements made by Dr. O. J. Firestone, economic adviser to the Department of Trade and Commerce and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Let them laugh at this statement made by Dr. Firestone on September 18, as reported in the Globe and Mail of that date:
"Population and economic growth have been so rapid in the last decade that housing has not kept pace with the growth," Dr. Firestone said. "This

is indicated by the fact that in 1951 the number of families without homes is estimated to exceed 500,000, or about twice the number in 1939 and about two-fifths more than in 1945."
Canada may thus be facing by 1955 a situation similar to that in 1945, with backlog requirements larger than ever before and further expansion still ahead.
"Thus we may find that at that time it will not be enough to build the close to 100,000 units per year- our accomplishment between 1949 and 1951-but an even larger number. Perhaps between 115,000 and 130,000 units per annum will be necessary," he said.
Then further down:
The economist said it had been estimated that in the 1949 housing program, when some 90,000 housing units were built, about 235,000 Canadians were employed the year round either in building houses or in supplying the necessary materials and services. By 1955, he added a 130,000 unit program might provide employment for over 300,000 persons.
Then, let me give another statement by a gentleman who ought to know something about the housing situation in Canada. This is a press statement attributed to F. A. Mager, president of the national house builders' association. It was made in September last in Winnipeg, and reads as follows:
Hundreds of builders face disaster unless mortgage credit restrictions are eased. F. A. Mager, president of the National House Builders Association, declares. "Figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics show 40 per cent fewer dwellings were started in July than in the same month a year ago. The drop can be blamed on Ottawa's failure to regard housing as part of the national defence effort."
Then he had this further to say, and I ask hon. members to weigh these words well:
"Bad as the situation is now," he concludes, "it'll defy description next spring. Already the birth rate, immigration, and the influx of defence workers are jamming our great industrial centres. Attics, private garages and basements are full; trailer camps and shack-towns are springing up. Much of this congestion, with its disastrous effects on the health and morals of the younger generation, would be avoided if the government would ease its mortgage credit terms."
For these unhappy results this parliament is not responsible, because parliament was not consulted about the reversal of government policy last February. Parliament was not consulted about the withdrawal of that one-sixth mortgage loan. Parliament had no part in that, no voice in it. This was the act of the government; and the full fruits of this wretched and disgraceful policy are to be laid at the door only of the federal government.
We are told something about the situation in government publications. How critical is the situation? "Housing in Canada" for the third quarter, 1951, a publication of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, tells us at page 22:
The composite index of wholesale prices of residential building materials advanced to 283 in July, 1951, 18 per cent higher than the index at July, 1950.

And in regard to wages it says on the same page:
At 217-
That is the level of wage rates in the construction industry.
-the index was 10 per cent higher than in July. 1950.
That points unmistakably to this fact, that every house built in 1949 cost less than if construction had been delayed to 1950. Every house built in 1950 would have cost more if the construction had been delayed to 1951. And who is to say that this process has ended? Who is to say that houses not built in 1951 but delayed until 1952 are not going to cost much more than if they had been permitted to be built in 1951? There is no reason visible on the horizon today to lead any sensible person to think that it will cost less to build houses in 1952 than it does in 1951. Therefore what is the sense of preventing the construction of houses in 1951 unless you say that you are going to do without the construction of needed houses in Canada?
I turn now to the other subject, related to section 35 of the Housing Act. I say that a number of the provinces have stepped in and co-operated with the federal government. Ontario is one. The fact that the province of Ontario has been most co-operative in this respect was readily acknowledged by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) in a speech on June 13 last to the fourteenth annual conference of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. He said this:
On Monday, the Hon. Leslie Frost announced that the government of Ontario has proposed to the federal government that the operations of section 35 in Ontario be extended beyond land assembly into the field of rental housing in the larger municipalities. If all eligible municipalities participate, it is estimated that this group of projects will result in about 5,000 housing units.


Mr. Martin:: How many have been built by Ontario under that agreement?


Mr, Fleming:: As many as the federal government would permit to be constructed; that is how many. And the minister who has just introduced one of his frequent senseless interruptions would be using his time much better if he would try to help along construction of houses in Windsor. He would be doing something much more useful than rising tonight and making foolish interruptions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order: How many houses have been built by the government of Ontario?
The Address-Mr. Fleming


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is: as many as the federal government would permit. Then the statement of the minister continues:
Because of the need for rental housing in the larger communities in Ontario, we feel that the proposal from the government of Ontario has much merit. I am glad to state that, in principle, the federal government is in agreement with this approach to the immediate problem as outlined by the government of Ontario. We hope that substantial progress will be made at an early date.
And then this further statement:
Although many problems are involved, I believe that a high degree of co-operation between the three levels of government will meet most of them. Let me say that we are very happy to work closely with the government of Ontario in carrying out the aims and objects of the proposal which has been made by Mr. Frost.
And then we have the fact that on July 26 an agreement was brought about, and the federal government then approved the construction by Ontario of 5,000 houses on the basis of allocation among different municipalities at a rate of one house per five hundred of population. That program has proceeded with all the speed the Ontario government has been able to put behind it in its negotiations with the municipalities. And provision has been made for the construction of 325 houses in the city of Windsor, although we do not get any help from one citizen of Windsor, namely, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, except foolish interruptions. And do not forget what has happened. The minister had better look at page 78 of Hansard and read what his colleague the Minister of Resources and Development had to say, where he pointed to the fact that the government at Ottawa had to restrain the government of Ontario from going ahead too fast with the construction of 5,000 houses. He said:
You will recall that about this time Ontario announced an initial program of 5,000 units to be expanded at a later date, and other provinces came forward with proposals indicating their intention to build low-rental projects. This operation would have imposed a charge against available materials, and this had to be taken into consideration because the small amounts of materials showing up as surpluses in some areas would not have been sufficient to cope with the number of units being discussed under this section.
There is the answer to the minister. And so we come down to October 6, the next feeble attempt by the government to change policy. We find the announcement of the federal government that they are going to change the mortgage lending provisions. Buyers are now called upon to make a down payment of 20 per cent of the cost based on an agreed selling price and 10 per cent in the case of defence workers, the balance being payable in twenty-five years.
1164	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming
I point out that there is no system of priorities set up for materials for these plans, and in the second place the program of this government in defence production has been so slow in getting started that there is no hope of immediate benefit for defence workers. And look at the condition attaching to it. A house for a defence worker, to qualify under this provision, must be located within fifteen minutes transportation from the defence plant. In our larger urban centres how many houses can be built within fifteen minutes transportation of defence plants? Why, in the city of Toronto these houses have to be built outside the city limits, while the defence industries are within the city, far more than fifteen minutes transportation away. So a provision of that kind has tied defence workers to an impossible condition.
I say further, as Mr. Churchill in England has said, that "house building should have priority second only to national defence" itself. And Mr. Frost said the same thing in Ontario, that we should regard housing as a necessary and integral part of our defence program-a necessary and integral part. That is the policy the Minister of National Health and Welfare now attempts to deride.


Mr. Marlin:: You have not answered the question yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Housing is a matter of federal responsibility. Now we find the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) and the hon. member for Spadiraa (Mr. Croll) saying on public platforms that housing is a provincial responsibility. We always find that when things are going well in any field this government claims that the credit is all federal, and the subject clearly lies within the federal field. But the minute they realize what a botch they have made of it, and that they are faced with an impossible situation, they say that it is not a subject of federal responsibility but a matter for the provinces. It is the same old story. Every time there is a problem confronting them they say, "This is not our responsibility; it is that of the provinces."
I say here tonight to hon. members opposite that housing is a federal responsibility. It is a federal responsibility, first, because the problem is national in its scope. It is federal because in the second place only the federal government has financial control and in the third place because it has control of materials. Do not forget that. Then in the fourth place it is a federal responsibility because in 1949 the federal government promised to meet this problem and to beat
[Mr. Fleming.)

it. Fifth, it is a federal responsibility because federal policies have created it. Defence policies have created this concentration of defence workers in cities. Immigration policies are bringing more people to Canada. I am not quarrelling with that, but those newcomers to this country are going into the larger industrial areas. They are going into Ontario, because they like to come to a province which offers such attractive possibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can finish in a minute.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, while I admire the hon. member very much I am not surprised that he would object to curtailing speeches in the House of Commons, particularly when he has been speaking for over an hour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Alphonse Fournier: We did not object, Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member will not observe the rules of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a question of privilege.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member has had sixty minutes of privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is utterly untrue. It is now 8.41 p.m. The minister knows that I started speaking at 8.04J, and before the dinner adjournment I had two minutes exactly. I have not had more than forty minutes, notwithstanding the untrue statement-


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member has raised his question of privilege, and I should have the privilege of saying a few words.


Howard Charles Green: Is this on the point of order or is it a speech?


Alphonse Fournier: It is going to be a very short speech with no abuse.


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order, all I will say is that the time of the hon. member for Eglinton has expired.


An hon. Member:: And how!


Alphonse Fournier: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that his time expired a long time ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman does not like us to tell him the truth. He repeats that about five or six times every session. We are very patient with him

and listen to him. Being polite, we do not say anything. During his speech tonight we heard such words as "folly", "senseless" and "nonsense". The hon. member is one of these big men from Toronto who come down here to tell everybody else that nobody else has any sense. The hon. member is the only one who agrees with that opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I have never attempted to remonstrate with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). He is a young member of parliament who came to the house in 1945 after we had purchased the property at 24 Sussex street. We had never heard his name before and we did not know where he came from until he entered the house and sat at the other end with another young man. When he made his first speech he was a little nervous, but he did not try to abuse anybody. But he has grown older, and when there is an election in the offing he seems to have no control over his words or expressions. He thinks he is as effective outside as he is in the house, but I know that nobody believes what he said tonight about the Prime Minister's residence. I will not say a word more on this because I do not want to imitate the hon. member.
In 1943 or 1944 by expropriation proceedings, not by negotiation, the government purchased the last property available on the Ottawa river in the eastern part of the city. It was a real domain, a lovely property. For twenty-five years both parties had been talking about having a residence for the Prime Minister. This property was not purchased to provide a home for the late prime minister or his successor. The Australian government required space for their offices, and the property was rented to them under a moderate month to month lease. The property was paid for by the Department of Finance after a judgment of the exchequer court set the price at $140,000. I did not come here tonight prepared to speak on this subject, but as I recall it the owner of the property asked $275,000. That was a value placed upon the property by the valuators and assessors who gave evidence in the exchequer court. The judge of the court visited the property before rendering judgment.
This was an old residence which had been built in the first years of confederation. Everybody admired the site and the home. That property was paid for; and then in the dying days of the 1949 session the late prime minister-he was not interested in this personally because he was going out of public life-made a moving speech in which he
The Address-Hon. A. Fournier suggested that this property should be acquired as a residence for the Prime Minister.


Howard Charles Green: I think it was the Minister of
Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who made that speech. I was here.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. King made that
speech when he was not in the government. It was in the dying days of the last session before the election. Mr. King had received Laurier House from Lady Laurier and had also been provided with sufficient money by friends to renovate the residence. He told us that during his lifetime he would have liked to entertain more people but he did not feel he was able to do that with the salary paid to him as Prime Minister and the cost of upkeep of that residence.
Some days after the opening of the new session my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), told the house that in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the government had decided to build a residence for the Prime Minister of Canada. I recall the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of all other parties agreeing that this should be done, that after eighty and some odd years this country should provide a residence for its first citizen where he could receive people. The matter was discussed pro and con and everybody seemed to be in agreement. I think it was a good decision.
We hear many speeches made in an effort to show that we are spending money uselessly, but I do not think it becomes the hon. member for Eglinton to speak in the way he has spoken tonight, especially when he has not given the facts as they actually exist. I think he is a bigger man than that Sometimes he seems to forget himself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What we are concerned with is how you spent the other $460,000?


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member will only listen to me perhaps he will learn. I may be wrong, but if so there are many people in Canada who are wrong in the same way. Does the hon. member say that the Prime Minister should still be living in four rooms at the Roxborough? If he does, I do not agree with him.


An hon. Member:: No one said that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the question at all. We are all in favour of providing a residence.


Alphonse Fournier: Why should the hon. member interrupt me when I did not interrupt him when he spoke and said everything.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Your colleague interrupted me about fifteen times.

The Address-Hon. A. Fournier


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member
cannot avoid abuse; that is why he is not effective in the house. If he could only keep quiet and listen to others who have thoughts and opinions in which they believe and want to express he might learn something.
We took this property, and it was decided in this house that we should provide a residence for the Prime Minister. No one dissented about the project. Being the Minister of Public Works I was put in charge of the undertaking. There are many experts on public works. Everybody seems to know all about public works and what they cost. It seems so easy to criticize.
We had the advice of probably the best architects we could find. They came from Toronto, and worked on the project. After consultation with these outstanding architects who have left many monuments in our country, even in Toronto-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You certainly built yourself one out on Sussex street.


Alphonse Fournier: Go and ask the
veterans if these same architects did not build a fine hospital in Toronto. They are the same architects. They were our advisers. They devised the plans and prepared the specifications. We were rebuilding an old home on the advice of the architects to try to save thousands of dollars, which we did save; and we can prove it. I think I can get the figures. We saved around $38,000 by not having a complete new plan. I am not making up these figures. They were given to me. The architects said: You can hardly give a firm price contract on this work. We looked around and thought one of the best contractors in Ottawa was Mr. Garvock. He had quite a lot of experience and had done a great deal of work in this vicinity. He was so proud to take on the job that he only asked a fee of $10,000, and we thought it was very modest.
He undertook the work, and it took some time. It was going on even before the government had decided to curtail housing in Canada. You say that we went along with the project and built the house. Would you approve if the minister in charge or the government had just dropped the project once we had started it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you asking me?


Alphonse Fournier: I am asking reasonable people who know something about construction. Once we had started on the house we found it was quite expensive.


An hon. Member:: I should think so.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, and I know what the hon. member said at a political meeting.

I think he was wrong to say it unless he could substantiate what he said at that meeting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are you talking about?


An hon. Member:: In Vancouver.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not speaking to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). The member to whom I am speaking knows what I mean.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like the minister to say what he means.


Alphonse Fournier: You are not the one this time. The work went along. We paid the bills. We asked for votes in the house and they were approved by parliament. We proceeded with the work, and we did not spend more than $284,000 on that building. That is the figure I gave in the house and the figure that appears in the records of the public works department with respect to the building. There is a building right next to that residence that cost twice as much, and if you look along that street you will see other buildings that cost around $200,000. Yet you would deny the Prime Minister of your country a building that cost $284,220.56.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Over $600,000.


Alphonse Fournier: Read the figures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Look up your return. It is over $600,000.


Alphonse Fournier: I am reading from the return which was handed down in the house on November 5.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last June your return put the total at $613,000.


Alphonse Fournier: November 5 this year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Give the figures as to the amounts spent on the grounds and the furnishings.


Alphonse Fournier: The structure cost $284,220.56. That is the building, and then you add to that the cost of the property which was purchased seven or eight years before. If the hon. member knew all the properties we have in Ottawa, what was paid for them and what their maintenance has cost, he would not always be harping on the Prime Minister's residence. I could show you privately-owned properties where far more than that has been spent, and nobody ever mentions it. We paid $140,000 for that old property. What was asked for it before the courts? Then there is the $284,220.56 we have spent on the building. Before the Prime Minister went to live there-and that residence will be for all future prime ministers- we had to furnish the place. We had to buy

chinaware, glassware and silverware. You would not want him to purchase those things out of his own salary, I suppose? We purchased them. We brought in probably the best firms in Canada to furnish the place, and up to November 5 of this year it had cost us $108,937.17. When you speak of the residence of the Prime Minister and try to make people believe that it cost $600,000 I do not think that is fair, and you are not fair to yourself. Look at the return.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Look at the return you filed in the house last June-$613,000.


Alphonse Fournier: I am trying to give you what this return shows, and it was asked for by a member of the opposition. We handed over to the federal district commission money to landscape the property, and according to the return we have spent $56,978.83 for that. You have the whole expenditure made on this property in this return.


An hon. Member:: He never read it.


Alphonse Fournier: He did not read it. He makes speeches without knowing what he is talking about. A contract was let for the fence surrounding the property, and I find that we asked for tenders with respect to it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At last a tender!


Alphonse Fournier: Do you want to know the figures? One firm, Ottawa Iron Works, made a bid of $11,976; and a second firm, Modern Forge Registered, made a tender of $5,862.90. Just imagine two firms experienced in this work, and one of them making a tender of $11,976 and the other a tender of $5,862.90.


An hon. Member:: Who got it?


Alphonse Fournier: Double the amount. Yet we have people trying to discuss costs of construction when even those who undertake such works can vary in their prices by 100 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why didn't you call for tenders on the other jobs?


Alphonse Fournier: You would not have even made a bid on it unless you know more than these very good architects from Toronto. I do not decide these things and I would not take your advice on construction. I would rather go to my technical advisers. When you speak of that residence it leaves me quite indifferent, and I will tell you why. I have been here twenty-two years, and I was as happy as a lark when I met all the members of the opposition at a reception in that new home and each and every one of them congratulated me on the nice job that had been
The Address-Hon. A. Fournier done. They would say that to me on that occasion at 24 Sussex street, but when they stand up here they have so few things that can be found fault with so far as the government is concerned that they pick on this matter. You can keep talking about the Prime Minister's residence, but you are perhaps the only one who is not proud that our Prime Minister has a residence.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Oh, nonsense.


Alphonse Fournier: No, I don't use the same language as the hon. member to whom I have been referring. I know you would not and I do not myself.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I recognize nonsense when I hear it.
An. hon. Member: Another expert.


Alphonse Fournier: Really you have me there, madam, only that is a matter of opinion and I do not agree with yours. To come back to the residence, it will remain the Prime Minister's residence for years to come, and it will be maintained in a good state of repair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister tell us something now about the veterans' houses that were to have been built but were not built?


Alphonse Fournier: I will tell you something about the repairs to the White House that have cost the United States government $6 million to date, and nobody criticizes it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister discuss veterans' houses?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member that I will not try to do as he does; I will not try to discuss things that I do not know much about.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not do the minister justice.


Mr. Dickey:: It does the hon. member more than justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. H. H. W. Beyerstein (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), and I should also like to make a few suggestions in connection with the great crop losses sustained by the western farmers as a result of the extremely adverse harvesting conditions this fall. First I will deal with the subamendment, which reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:

The Address-Mr. Beyerstein
"Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance."
The words of that subamendment speak for themselves. Considering the announcement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) the other day in connection with increases in pensions, I feel that the government is obligated to grant to recipients of war veterans allowance an increase to compensate for their loss in purchasing power which has resulted from the ever increasing high cost of living.
Last May the Canadian Legion presented a brief to the special committee on veterans affairs. At page 86 of the minutes and proceedings of that committee the following recommendations were made:
We recommend:
(1)	that the basic rate of war veterans allowance be increased to $50 monthly for a single recipient and $100 for a married recipient and that income from other sources be permitted up to $250 for a single person for a year and $500 for a married one.
(2)	That where a recipient is permanently and completely unemployable and has no other income, the W.V.A. rate be $60 for a single person and $120 for a married veteran.
(3)	That consideration be given to the plight of children whose parents are on W.V.A.
(4)	That W.V.A. benefits be extended to Canadian veterans living outside Canada.
Those recommendations were endorsed by the national council of veterans associations in Canada and therefore can be considered as the general opinion of all veterans in Canada. When the hon. member for Acadia was speaking in this debate he mentioned the fact that the $70 which the veteran receives is worth only $56.70 in terms of the 1948 dollar. The veteran would receive much less than that if calculations were made on the basis of the 1939 dollar; and I wish to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the 1939 dollar which is most commonly used when we calculate the increase in the cost of living. Owing to the enormous increase in prices the veteran gets $13.30 less today than he did three years ago. The figures used to illustrate the loss of veterans' purchasing power could be used equally well to illustrate the dwindling purchasing power of every other citizen in Canada.
The other day in a magazine entitled V.S. News & World Report, the issue of November 16, 1951, I came across an interesting article on inflation. I find that this magazine is reliable in its editorials and articles, and I feel that some comments from this article would serve to illustrate the predicament that our citizens are in today with
regard to the cost of living. The article is too lengthy to read, but I should like to make a few comments on it.
The article deals with a man receiving a salary of $4,000 a year back in 1939. This man was comfortably fixed. He lived in a modest home that may have cost about $7,000. Shelter and food were fairly reasonable in price at that time. There was a chance for this man on that salary to save approximately $1,000 a year by careful management. This young man with a salary of $4,000 in 1939, if he was 30 years old, could look forward to about thirty-five years of employment. He could expect, out of savings and the interest on savings, to have at least $60,000 when his earning period ended. That sum, invested to return 3 per cent would yield him $1,800 income per year. That seemed fairly reasonable. However, this $4,000 a year man of 1939 today finds that all his ideas and plans are upset. His cost of living has nearly doubled since that time. To be as well off as he was in 1939, this man now needs about $9,000 a year. Instead of $3,000 for living expenses, he needs about $5,600. Taxes on his $9,000 income, if he gets it, would be about $1,300. If he failed to buy a house before the war, he would have to pay $16,000 for the house that would have cost him $7,000 in 1939. When he replaces his car, it would cost twice as much or more. A college education for his children will be two or three times as expensive as it was in 1939. Saving, as a result, is much more difficult today than it was back in 1939. In fact it is practically impossible for a man with a family of two children to save anything at all on a salary of $4,000 a year. His only future would be to obtain a position with some reliable firm which could offer him a pension when he was ready to retire. The only other alternative would be to wait until he qualifies for the government old age pension.
In this article are given some interesting figures which I should like to quote. At page 14 of this magazine there is a chart which gives various incomes in 1939 as compared with incomes in 1952. These figures are based on a married couple with two children, showing the income needed to live as of 1939 and as of today. If a man received $1,200 in 1939, he would need $2,252 in 1952; if a man received $1,800 in 1939, he would need $3,658 today in order to have the same standard of living. A man receiving a salary of $2,500 in 1939 today needs an income of $5,347. The equivalent of a $4,000 salary in 1939 in terms of today's purchasing power would be $9,017. This article cites figures up to $1 million a year. I shall not read all the

figures, but it might be interesting to note that if a man received $1 million in 1939, to maintain the same standard of living today he would require $5,029,800. This gives a fair idea of the inflation that has taken place in the past few years. I realize that we cannot expect this government to do very much about remedying this inflation, but I do believe that it is up to the government to grant the recipients of war veterans allowance an increase.
The other item with which I should like to deal is the predicament in which our western farmers find themselves. This fall the farmers of western Canada had the misfortune of being caught by adverse weather conditions. They had the prospect of harvesting one of the heaviest crops in years, but because of the abundance of moisture the ripening process was prolonged, resulting in a very late harvest. During the growing season we had an abundance of moisture, and when the crops should have been ripening we had still more moisture. As a result the harvest was delayed almost a month, and before the farmers had an opportunity to harvest the grain the snow covered it. Less than 50 per cent of the farmers completed their threshing and combining operations. It is estimated that about $200 million worth of grain is still to be harvested in western Canada, and $75 million worth is still standing in Alberta. This figure of 50 per cent does not mean that each farmer has threshed 50 per cent of his crop, but relates to the over-all situation. On the basis of individual farmers, you will find that many farmers have not threshed a bushel and are not sure they ever will be able to thresh a bushel of their grain, in spite of the heavy crop.
Crops that have to lie under the snow all winter are bound to spoil to some extent, and field mice will cause further damage, resulting in a lower yield. As a result of this early snow the feed shortage is becoming acute. In fact many farmers have had to dump their livestock on the market simply because they did not have sufficient feed to carry them through the winter. A loss of $200 million on a crop is what we would call a catastrophe, and the government should find some means of assisting these farmers who have been unable to complete their harvesting operations. Following the Manitoba flood and the Rimouski fire the government set a precedent by coming to the rescue of those two catastrophies. I wish to make it clear that I do not begrudge one penny paid to those victims. I only wish that they could have had further consideration, and we supported the government in that decision.
The Address-Mr. Beyerstein
The point I wish to make is this. So far as the western farmers are concerned the loss of $200 million on a crop is a catastrophe. Possibly it was not as sudden or as spectacular as the other two catastrophies, but the hardship resulting from this loss is just as real. I feel that the government is obligated to compensate the western farmers in some way. In many cases they will have to sell the grain they have been holding for next year's seeding operations in order to carry them through the winter. I suggest that the government should make provision to enable them to buy seed grain next spring. On the other hand those farmers who have not seed grain on hand should be enabled to obtain credit so they may obtain seed for next year's operations.
Going a step farther, I would suggest that the government should investigate the possibility of instigating some form of crop insurance to take care of a catastrophe such as we had in the western provinces this year. Farming is an occupation which is constantly facing unforeseen dangers and should, therefore, have some form of protection. The present Prairie Farm Assistance Act goes a long way in this direction, but I feel it should be extended to include some crop insurance plan. I should like to compliment the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the changes he has made in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act during the past two or three years. The act now provides for a much wider range of benefits than it did, but I am sure the farmers would favour a plan, even with higher contributions if necessary, which would give them complete crop insurance. It may be argued that such a plan would encourage poor farming. If one stops to consider that point one can readily realize that this would not be the case. A poor farmer would always be surrounded by a number of good farmers and it would be a simple matter for an inspector to determine whether the crop was lost as a result of poor farming methods or as the result of some act of nature. If the crop loss were the result of drought, flood, frost, insect infestation, plant disease and so on, it would cover a wide area, and it would be a simple matter for the inspector to determine whether or not the crop was lost as a result of poor farming methods.
Quite often crop failures impair the credit standing of an individual, and sometimes even destroy it. Farmers find themselves without money and without credit to finance next year's operations. A crop insurance scheme would guarantee farmers the opportunity to continue their farming operations next year. A crop insurance plan would

The Address-Mr. Masse also provide new sources of credit for the farmer who, because of forces beyond his control, could become a poor financial risk.
The grain farmer is not the only one who has been having difficulty in the last year or so. The dairy farmer has also had a considerable amount of worry. I hold in my hand a bulletin from the National Dairy Council of Canada from which I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs as follows:
"The number of milk cows on Canadian farms as at June 1, 1951, reached the lowest point in 20 years -this in face of a human population increase of 25 million in the past eight years alone.
The production of milk has declined well over a billion pounds since the end of the war and it is expected that, despite the most favourable farming conditions this year, 1951 production will be the lowest since 1940.
The production of milk per capita has declined from 1,500 pounds in 1942 to less than 1,200 pounds estimated for this year.
The annual production of butter has declined more than 40 million pounds during the past three years alone. This is the lowest production on record in twenty years; the production of cheese, at one time our biggest export commodity, has dropped from 189 million pounds in 1945 to less than 100 million this year; the production of fluid milk has not been sufficient to meet the year-round requirements of a large number of city markets, necessitating the reconstitution of milk from manufactured products. This shortage of fluid milk will become progressively worse unless the over-all decline is halted."
That bulletin does not paint a very rosy future for the dairy farmer; and according to the correspondence I have received from the dairy farmers, I am convinced that they have reason for worry. I believe that the government should do something about these problems. I suggest that the government should first of all provide assistance for those who require it as a result of crop losses this fall. In addition, they should put an item in the estimates providing for a study of some form of crop insurance to take care of such events in the future. Then a study should be made of the problems of the dairy industry. I would strongly urge the government to consider these points very carefully.
(Translation):


Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the voters of Kamouraska constituency delegated me to represent them in the House of Commons. Since every duty implies an obligation, I must today voice their opinions, their feelings and their gratitude towards the government of the nation.
Tradition plays an important part in Kamouraska and I am happy to thank the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) who was kind enough to visit the parish of St. Pacome when its centenary was being cele-

brated. He thereby proved that he understood perfectly the minds and feelings of the people back home. The people of St. Pacome parish and of all Kamouraska county are most grateful to him for this visit.
Like those who spoke before me, I take pleasure in congratulating the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have brought honour upon their respective constituencies.
First of all I must thank the government for having introduced the old age pensions act. I shall then say a few words about the St. Lawrence seaway and the high cost of living.
On March 2, 1950 I said that the old age pension came as a ray of sunshine in many homes. Now that this act is on our statute books, may I be permitted to request the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to give some consideration, as soon as circumstances will permit, to the invalids and to the unfortunate, so that they too may enjoy a little sunshine and happiness.
As far as the St. Lawrence seaway is com cerned, my constituents will evidently not benefit by it. Since, however, the problem reaches beyond the limits of a parish or a county, and because the project is designed to ensure the prosperity of this country I strongly support it. However, I reserve the right of expressing my views when that matter is submitted to the house for approval.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as inflation is concerned-since it must be called by its name-I wish to state that my remarks apply particularly to the county 1 have the honour to represent here.
Opinions may vary in different localities and I am always ready to listen to my colleagues' remarks with the best grace in the world. My constituents and I do not think it is urgent to set up price control. I represent an agricultural constituency and I am convinced that the high cost of living is not caused by the increase in the price of farm products.
First of all, what is inflation? Some economists say that inflation results from too large an amount of money chasing too little goods. Is it not rather the result of war? If we consider what has happened since 1800, we see that the very same thing occurred after each war.
The farmer holds that he does not get proper returns for his products. On the

other hand, the consumer is convinced that he has to pay far too much for what he buys.
First of all, where are the chief agricultural centres of the country? The west goes in for general grain production and feed grain in particular, for livestock, hog raising, dairy products and farming in general. The east, where problems are quite different and where farms are much smaller, goes in mostly for mixed farming, dairying, hog and poultry raising and, to a limited extent, grain growing.
What is the current distribution, on our Canadian farms, of cattle, the very basis of our stock farming industry? A comparison of groups included in that category shows that since 1945 this branch of agriculture has declined, the reduction ranging between 10 and 15 per cent. This year's estimates are about the same.
If we take into account the annual growth of the population, we can well see that a proportionate increase is required to meet the growing needs of the population. The same is true for the hog raising industry which runs from 5 to 10 per cent.
Let us now consider the relation between production, cost of production and consumption. As I pointed out earlier, the production of food on the farm is declining; it does not provide excess profit in regard not only to gross production cost but also to various factors such as weather conditions, good or bad, cost of equipment, maintenance of farm buildings, depreciation, interest on capital outlays and excessive cost of labour.
Therefore the causes for the spread between production costs and consumer prices must be found elsewhere. As I say, the multiplicity of middlemen, the opportunities for easy speculation and storage costs are direct causes of that difference.
Farmers of my constituency did not expect to sell their pork at 40 cents a pound. On the other hand, they did not expect to sell it at 29 cents a pound. If we took as a basis the average between those two prices, we could obtain an average price satisfactory to all concerned.
A look at the report of Canada Packers shows that their production has fallen off by about six million pounds in 1951 whereas profits last year reached four million. It is readily noticed that the profits made by this company are greater than those made by the producer.
The Address-Mr. Masse
I believe the best way to protect production and consumption would be to guarantee a floor price to producers and to control storage facilities. There is no better example of that than the method put into practice by the Canadian government in 1950 when they, in fact, controlled the price paid to the butter producers and also the distribution of this food item. Nowadays we often hear it said- even in this house-that the only way to bring down the price of certain products is to restrict our exports to the United States. I am not of that opinion. We cannot afford to lose so profitable a market.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) should foster, by every possible means, increased production by our farmers. In my own constituency the farms do not lend themselves to further developments because every bit of usable space is already being cultivated to the limit.
Like everyone in my constituency I am opposed to large scale immigration. In my district there are 800 to 850 births a year, as against approximately 250 deaths. That means that we have 600 people who have to look for jobs in industry, that is to say farther west. That is why I am opposed, not to any form of immigration, but to large scale immigration.
In the province of Quebec, there is an evil which, at its worst, does not affect all the people but which affects a great many. On looking back to what happened a few years ago we see that on May 19, 1909, a Liberal government led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier created a natural resources board. Forty years later, another Liberal prime minister created the royal commission for the national advancement of the arts, letters and sciences, which I might call a spiritual commission. Among its members was a representative of the province of Quebec for whom we Quebecers, especially at Laval university, feel the greatest respect and admiration. We know that his reputation extends beyond the city of Quebec and the borders of the province. When I see that, for political reasons, the words of that worthy representative are quoted and an attempt is made to contradict them and to make people believe that he no longer holds his former beliefs, I am dumbfounded.
Referring to page 156 of the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences-report signed by the commissioners and by the man I just mentioned-we read the following:

The Address-Mr. Masse
The federal government should not, either at present or as long as the present constitutional arrangement persists, give direct aid for scholarships except for research or post-graduate study. As for scholarships at other levels, the government should do nothing whatsoever without a formal agreement with the provinces.
I wonder if it is in that paragraph that they sin against the autonomy of the province. Further on, at page 355 of the same report, it is stated:
We therefore recommend:
(a)	That in addition to the help already being given for research and other purposes the federal government make annual contributions to support the work of the universities on the basis of the population of each of the provinces of Canada.
(b)	That these contributions be made after consultation with the government and the universities of each province, to be distributed to each university proportionately to the student enrolment.
(c)	That these contributions be sufficient to ensure that the work of the universities of Canada may be carried on in accordance with the needs of the nation.
(d)	That all members of the national conference of Canadian universities be eligible for the federal grants mentioned above.
When Rev. Father Levesque supports such a recommendation, how can he be accused of sinning against the autonomy of our province. The Massey commission is accused of being a centralizing commission and a deadly germ for the province of Quebec. The deadly germ for the province of Quebec is not the Massey commission, but rather the speak-easies.
There is another remark I would direct to my colleague from Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). When he involves my race and states that our soldiers are being discriminated against in the armed forces, I have great doubts as to the truth of his charges. I have been a professor at the university for 30 years and I can assure you that any time a student failed in his exams, it was always the professor's fault. Two years ago, a good friend of mine was unable, for some reason or other, to obtain the degrees he sought to obtain. He felt himself cheated. He asked me to carry out an investigation. I was told that, in his case, he might obtain the promotion he sought in another sphere. This young man therefore entered another branch of the army and today he is a real asset to his unit.
The remarks I have just made have not been put forward as a criticism, but with a view of expressing the opinion of the voters who elected me to represent them here. In these difficult times, it is imperative that everyone do his duty, so as to ensure the welfare of all our people.
(Text):


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this debate to say a few words in connection with an urgent matter affecting the district which I have the honour to represent. Last night I listened to a broadcast from the motherland and was glad to hear that our gracious majesty, the king, is gradually recovering. May it be God's blessing and will that he be fully restored to his usual good health.
Though they may be somewhat delayed, I should like to say a few words about the visit of The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh to our capital city. Along with all hon. members of the house I rejoiced at having the opportunity to meet Their Royal Highnesses at the reception. I want at this time to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for giving me the introduction he did. I was almost lost in the long line and although the aide introduced me the Prime Minister in quite an audible voice said, "The member of parliament from Prince Edward Island". Everybody knows the treasure island province, except the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret), and Her Royal Highness extended her hand and said most graciously, "You came a long way to see me". I am not going to place on the record my reply to her nice remark, be it romantic or diplomatic, because it does not matter, but it did bring forth a most gracious smile and handshake from Her Royal Highness. Again I want to thank the Prime Minister for having given me this opportunity.
The visit of these members of the royal family has had a good effect throughout Canada. It has knit together our two countries, and made stronger the ties and bonds that bind us to the mother country. May it be the will of Divine Providence that these two countries grow closer together than ever. May their ties and bonds be stronger than ever, so they can show to the whole world that they stand for the best form of civilization. An opportunity was given Canada to show her warmth to Her Royal Highness and her husband and also to bind ourselves more closely to the mother country.
In passing, I should like to say a word about the reception given by the city of Ottawa to Their Royal Highnesses. A great many things one way or another have been said about this, but I want to say that I was proud of

The Address-Mr. McLure
the reception given, by the capital city of Canada to The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh. The city was gay, and all functions were carried out in a wonderful manner. That is one reason I say that we should try to make this city greater and more beautiful than ever.
I have never objected at any time to any amount in the estimates for the improvement of Ottawa, although I might have had reason to criticize who spent the money and how it was spent. Everyone should look upon Ottawa as a beautiful city. It is our capital city. It is my capital city. I say "my capital city" because as the capital of Canada it is as much my capital city as it is the capital city of someone from Ontario or any other province. I should also like to say that even if there was some criticism about the entertainment, on the whole we should be proud of the way our capital city honoured Their Royal Highnesses on the occasion of their first visit. I am not going to take up a great deal of time with reference to any other preliminaries except to say that, as is customary, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As many others have said, their speeches were of a very high order. I should also like to congratulate my leader at this time on having scored a grand slam in the recent by-elections. It seemed to give him a great deal of pleasure. I should also like to congratulate Mr. Speaker on the wonderful way in which he presides over the house. Furthermore I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on being a connoisseur of the humble spud, which is produced in great quantities in my province. I listened to the speech he made, but I had no idea that he was going to set himself up
as a connoisseur of the humble potato. At page 37 of Hansard for October 15, 1951, we find that he said:
I am sure a good many would feel that Ontario potatoes are just as good as Maine or Long Island potatoes. I know I got some from northern Ontario, from a friend of mine who was kind enough to send a bag to 24 Sussex street, and they are as nice potatoes as I have ever seen anywhere in the world.
I was delighted that he had not compared those potatoes with those of the maritimes, particularly New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where potatoes are really de luxe. However, his remarks as to these Ontario potatoes are all right and I agree with them as long as they are not compared with the product of my own province.
On motion of Mr. McLure the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will
take up third reading of Bill No. 21, an act respecting the Canadian forces; third reading of Bill No. 22, an act to implement the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces; Bill No. 19, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act; Bill No. 17, an act to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936. This last bill is to be referred to the special committee on radio broadcasting. Then we will take up Bill No. 23, an act to amend the Government Annuities Act. This bill is to be referred to the committee on industrial relations. Then we will take up the resolution of the Minister of Finance concerning financial matters, the bill to be referred to the public accounts committee when it is given second reading.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 20, 1951